Shocker: Trump received millions from foreign governments as POTUS

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You really don’t understand the issue of Hilary using a private server? Really? 

Oh - I do. Where was the outrage when the Trump White House did the same exact thing?

 

Why wasn’t Hillary indicted?

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, BillStime said:

Oh - I do. Where was the outrage when the Trump White House did the same exact thing?

 

Why wasn’t Hillary indicted?

There should be outrage no matter who was or is doing it. As to why she wasn’t indicted it’s because she was no longer in office and the damage had been done. Your general lack of understanding of the basics is nothing short of astonishing. 

[BillStime]

36 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

There should be outrage no matter who was or is doing it. As to why she wasn’t indicted it’s because she was no longer in office and the damage had been done. Your general lack of understanding of the basics is nothing short of astonishing. 

 

lmao, I love your ol' default  response when you can't justify Trump's behavior - especially when the POS campaigned on LOCK HER UP and Hillary can't be trusted with US security...

[SoCal Deek]

27 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

lmao, I love your ol' default  response when you can't justify Trump's behavior - especially when the POS campaigned on LOCK HER UP and Hillary can't be trusted with US security...

Don’t blame me for your lack of understanding. You’ll learn when you grow up. Just be patient. Your skin will clear up and your voice will get deeper too. 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Don’t blame me for your lack of understanding. You’ll learn when you grow up. Just be patient. Your skin will clear up and your voice will get deeper too. 

Keep spinning. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Don’t blame me for your lack of understanding. You’ll learn when you grow up. Just be patient. Your skin will clear up and your voice will get deeper too. 

I’m not so sure.  He’s arguing that it’s silly to suggest Hillary couldn’t be trusted…after Comey called her “extremely careless”  and Obama suggested that she was careless with emails.  
 

Of course, Comey indicated there was potential criminality but oddly decided to declare that a prosecutor wouldn’t bring a case. 
 

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m not so sure.  He’s arguing that it’s silly to suggest Hillary couldn’t be trusted…after Comey called her “extremely careless”  and Obama suggested that she was careless with emails.  
 

Of course, Comey indicated there was potential criminality but oddly decided to declare that a prosecutor wouldn’t bring a case. 
 

Your cult argued she couldn’t be trusted and won - based on Trump’s history I assume you’ll apply the same logic to Trump 2024 candidacy?

 

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m not so sure.  He’s arguing that it’s silly to suggest Hillary couldn’t be trusted…after Comey called her “extremely careless”  and Obama suggested that she was careless with emails.  
 

Of course, Comey indicated there was potential criminality but oddly decided to declare that a prosecutor wouldn’t bring a case. 
 

If any of you people ever worked in a classified environment you’d understand how out of bounds her behavior was. Anyone else would’ve been….yep…LOCKED UP! 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

17 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Your cult argued she couldn’t be trusted and won - based on Trump’s history I assume you’ll apply the same logic to Trump 2024 candidacy?

 

I didn’t say she couldn’t be trusted, you’re thinking of Comey and Obama.   
 

What always intrigues me about your posts is that you’ll take a losing point, for instance, HCs  fundamental inability to properly manage e-mail and in particular, National Security documents.   She was taken to the shed by Comey, was described as “extremely careless” with national security issues.  The only reason he said that is because it was true.  
 

You then take that point and pretend it never happened. 

Why is that?  She didn’t lose because of people like me.  She lost because too many people like you realized her actions were indefensible.  They get nervous when people who keep the secrets are “extremely careless” when doing so. 
 

 
 

 

 

26 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

If any of you people ever worked in a classified environment you’d understand how out of bounds her behavior was. Anyone else would’ve been….yep…LOCKED UP! 

My brother works for a software company that used to do govt work.  He was all over that point, and what would necessarily follow were he to be reckless…careless… or God forbid, be described by the FBI as “extremely careless”.   Prison time was a certainty.  Of course, he wasn’t, because he’s not a numnut. 

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I didn’t say she couldn’t be trusted, you’re thinking of Comey and Obama.   
 

What always intrigues me about your posts is that you’ll take a losing point, for instance, HCs  fundamental inability to properly manage e-mail and in particular, National Security documents.   She was taken to the shed by Comey, was described as “extremely careless” with national security issues.  The only reason he said that is because it was true.  
 

You then take that point and pretend it never happened. 

Why is that?  She didn’t lose because of people like me.  She lost because too many people like you realized her actions were indefensible.  They get nervous when people who keep the secrets are “extremely careless” when doing so. 
 

 
 

 

 

My brother works for a software company that used to do govt work.  He was all over that point, and what would necessarily follow were he to be reckless…careless… or God forbid, be described by the FBI as “extremely careless”.   Prison time was a certainty.  Of course, he wasn’t, because he’s not a numnut. 

Wrong - all I am doing is highlighting the lack of outrage from the cult with Trump’s practice of hoarding and destroying classified documents.

 

Where is the outrage from the cult?

 

Was Trump “extremely careless” and will you vote for him? 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

18 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Wrong - all I am doing is highlighting the lack of outrage from the cult with Trump’s practice of hoarding and destroying classified documents.

So you’re acknowledging that Hillary Clinton was extremely reckless as determined by the FBI, her actions were likely criminal?  
 

Why did you vote for her? 

 

 

18 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Where is the outrage from the cult?

 

Was Trump “extremely careless” and will you vote for him? 

 

 

I acknowledge that I have no idea what you are referencing.  
 

I’m aware of the Russia investigation, the twists, turns, allegations and investigations.  He said nothing would come of it because it was a “witch hunt”.  He was correct. 
 

I’m aware that the Dems proceeded with a partisan impeachment over allegations of wrongdoing with respect to Ukraine.  I know that while he was impeached by the opposition, no wrong doing was ever established and he’s facing no charges for that.  Again, DJT correctly predicted the outcome. 
 

I’m aware there is a committee established to look into the Jan 6 assault on the Capitol.  I’m also aware the same folks that failed in 1 and 2 above are running the show in a fashion similar fashion. If what happened previously happens again, the Dems will fail, they will assure you they didn’t, and you’ll believe it.  Trump likely will be proven correct again. 
 

Now, beyond that, what do you have for me in terms of Trump playing fast and lose with national security or not understanding how basic internet security works? 

[Wacka]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Don’t blame me for your lack of understanding. You’ll learn when you grow up. Just be patient. Your skin will clear up and your voice will get deeper too. 

And he'll get hair in some strange places!😀

[BillStime]

12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

So you’re acknowledging that Hillary Clinton was extremely reckless as determined by the FBI, her actions were likely criminal?  
 

Why did you vote for her? 

 

I acknowledge that I have no idea what you are referencing. 

I’m aware of the Russia investigation, the twists, turns, allegations and investigations.  He said nothing would come of it because it was a “witch hunt”.  He was correct. 
 

I’m aware that the Dems proceeded with a partisan impeachment over allegations of wrongdoing with respect to Ukraine.  I know that while he was impeached by the opposition, no wrong doing was ever established and he’s facing no charges for that.  Again, DJT correctly predicted the outcome. 
 

I’m aware there is a committee established to look into the Jan 6 assault on the Capitol.  I’m also aware the same folks that failed in 1 and 2 above are running the show in a fashion similar fashion. If what happened previously happens again, the Dems will fail, they will assure you they didn’t, and you’ll believe it.  Trump likely will be proven correct again. 
 

Now, beyond that, what do you have for me in terms of Trump playing fast and lose with national security or not understanding how basic internet security works? 

 

Wow, so, you really do only digest sugar coated Trump news - SMFH

 

So Trump hoarding boxes of White House documents at Mar-a-Lago and destroying documents at the White House during his presidency is acceptable?  Should the FBI and DOJ search all of Trump's properties for more documents?  This is NOT a threat to national security? 

 

National Archives asks Justice Dept. to investigate Trump’s handling of White House records - the request came amid revelations that officials recovered 15 boxes of materials from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence that weren’t handed back to the government as they should have been

 

Trump filled ‘burn bags’ with shredded White House records in violation of federal law, report says  Ex-president’s relentless habit ‘far more widespread and indiscriminate than previously known’

 

Historians having to tape together records that Trump tore up

 

But their emails: Seven members of Trump’s team have used unofficial communication tools

 

I notice you are trying really hard to spin as much as you can to deflect from the latest bombshell of corruption from the former Trump administration... it's really cute and it just makes you look more absurd.

 

And given the choice in 2016 to vote for Hillary or Donald - I could never vote for this POS:

 

 

 

[BillStime]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

If any of you people ever worked in a classified environment you’d understand how out of bounds her behavior was. Anyone else would’ve been….yep…LOCKED UP! 

Yeah I work for an Oracle based firm and I know all about cybersecurity, compliance and resilience.

 

Funny none of you minded Colin Powell doing the SAME thing and advised Hillary on the practice:

 

“So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers,” Powell wrote. “I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.”

 

Colin Powell’s advice to Hillary Clinton makes her private email server look like less of a scandal

 

Colin Powell on use of private email: ‘I stand by my decisions and I am fully accountable.’

Colin Powell told Clinton he bypassed official servers to email foreign leaders

 

More faux outrage from the cult.

 

When their guy does the same thing they justify it because Conald Trump did in fact used the office for personal gain, collude with Russians in both elections, weaponized his DOJ and tried to overturn the election via the Big Lie and an insurrection.

 

Keep spinning Delta3

 

[BillStime]

10 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 Prior to the rambling manifesto you just posted, you offered up the following:

 

Where is the outrage from the cult?

Was Trump “extremely careless” and will you vote for him? 

 

Absent context, this is gibberish.  

 

Thank you for the links.   You are welcome for my guidance in helping you organize your thoughts.  
 

On to your links…

 

National Archives asks Justice Dept…..
 

I can’t access this link as its behind a paywall.   I’ll bet, however, that you read about unnamed sources deep within something and blah blah blah.   
 

On the other hand, I found this story about mutual cooperation, ongoing discussion and a direct denial of what you read in the WaPo.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-a-lago-for-trump-documents/ar-AATCEYP

 

To answer the original question you posed…no, nothing about this story (with the actions described as “common” by those who undertake such work strikes me as “extremely reckless”, though I would describe you as “extremely naive”. 

Trump filled ‘burn bags’ with shredded…

In reading this story, I note the author starts with a declaration about everybody knowing about Trump ripping documents and placing the contents in burn bags. Gee, look there, their source?  We’ll get to that.    Soon enough, that will be reported elsewhere and you’ll probably think that you spotted the trend!   The headline, of course reads the burn bags were stuffed with “shredded White House records…”.  On the other hand, the author notes documents were torn into “quarters” and placed in burn bags.   I would point out that for most of us in the real world, “tearing a piece of paper into quarters” is not the same as “shredding”.  I’d bet you know that, huh BillSy?  
 

I’d also note that there seems to be a disconnect between what’s called a “burn bag” here, and a bag the author then suggests documents torn into quarters are removed from and placed together with scotch tape.  
 

Back to the sourcing.   I note the circular reporting style made famous during the Russia story, where the Independent quotes the—this is awkward—-WaPo, the one who assured you the National Archives folks  weren’t just gathering  documents as is “common” when a president leaves office. 
 

To answer the original question you posed, I would describe the tearing of sheets of paper into quarters—-if that happened and I bet it didn’t—as “non compliant” and “unnecessary” given that the story purports the documents were restored anyway.   
 

Historians having to tape together records that Trump tore up

This is a rehashing of the first story, which of course, seems silly upon reflection.  We find the same declaration that Trump was always ripping things up (what a coincidence they used the same words as in the first article!) we have a Putin reference to draw you in further, and fears of giants holes in records.  

 

I didn’t read the last link, I am assuming that’s your ace in the hole where the FBI director speaks to Trump officials ignoring classified and top secret markings in emails, being “extremely careless” as Sec of State, and about how the activity was likely criminal but prosecutors don’t prosecute such things?  
 

Yeah, I thought not.  🙄

 

You don’t have to believe everything they tell you, or notice trends in the way things are reported, or question every unnamed source that never quite seems to deliver on the goods they purport to have, but you won’t look as silly as you did here today if you put a little effort in. 
 

Godspeed pilgrim! 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

LOCK CONALD UP - a national security risk

 

 

 

[BillStime]

Hey @leh-nerd skin-erd - is there a reason why you deleted your gibberish...?  Hilarious.

 

Quote

 

10 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 Prior to the rambling manifesto you just posted, you offered up the following:

 

Where is the outrage from the cult?

Was Trump “extremely careless” and will you vote for him? 

 

Absent context, this is gibberish.  

 

Thank you for the links.   You are welcome for my guidance in helping you organize your thoughts.  
 

On to your links…

 

National Archives asks Justice Dept…..
 

I can’t access this link as its behind a paywall.   I’ll bet, however, that you read about unnamed sources deep within something and blah blah blah.   
 

On the other hand, I found this story about mutual cooperation, ongoing discussion and a direct denial of what you read in the WaPo.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-a-lago-for-trump-documents/ar-AATCEYP

 

To answer the original question you posed…no, nothing about this story (with the actions described as “common” by those who undertake such work strikes me as “extremely reckless”, though I would describe you as “extremely naive”. 

Trump filled ‘burn bags’ with shredded…

In reading this story, I note the author starts with a declaration about everybody knowing about Trump ripping documents and placing the contents in burn bags. Gee, look there, their source?  We’ll get to that.    Soon enough, that will be reported elsewhere and you’ll probably think that you spotted the trend!   The headline, of course reads the burn bags were stuffed with “shredded White House records…”.  On the other hand, the author notes documents were torn into “quarters” and placed in burn bags.   I would point out that for most of us in the real world, “tearing a piece of paper into quarters” is not the same as “shredding”.  I’d bet you know that, huh BillSy?  
 

I’d also note that there seems to be a disconnect between what’s called a “burn bag” here, and a bag the author then suggests documents torn into quarters are removed from and placed together with scotch tape.  
 

Back to the sourcing.   I note the circular reporting style made famous during the Russia story, where the Independent quotes the—this is awkward—-WaPo, the one who assured you the National Archives folks  weren’t just gathering  documents as is “common” when a president leaves office. 
 

To answer the original question you posed, I would describe the tearing of sheets of paper into quarters—-if that happened and I bet it didn’t—as “non compliant” and “unnecessary” given that the story purports the documents were restored anyway.   
 

Historians having to tape together records that Trump tore up

This is a rehashing of the first story, which of course, seems silly upon reflection.  We find the same declaration that Trump was always ripping things up (what a coincidence they used the same words as in the first article!) we have a Putin reference to draw you in further, and fears of giants holes in records.  

 

I didn’t read the last link, I am assuming that’s your ace in the hole where the FBI director speaks to Trump officials ignoring classified and top secret markings in emails, being “extremely careless” as Sec of State, and about how the activity was likely criminal but prosecutors don’t prosecute such things?  
 

Yeah, I thought not.  🙄

 

You don’t have to believe everything they tell you, or notice trends in the way things are reported, or question every unnamed source that never quite seems to deliver on the goods they purport to have, but you won’t look as silly as you did here today if you put a little effort in. 
 

Godspeed pilgrim! 

 

 

[BillStime]

So much fraud - so little time...

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

Reminder....

 

If you aren't as hell bent on getting to the bottom of this as you are getting to the bottom of Trumps taxes you're really just a garbage human being.....the worst kind of hack.  

 

And this is 100000000000000000 times worse 

 

 

 

Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia: Durham

 

'Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP's DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.'

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clinton-campaign-paid-infiltrate-trump-tower-white-house-servers

 

[Westside]

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

 

Holy cow aren’t you triggered? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[BillStime]

32 minutes ago, Westside said:

Holy cow aren’t you triggered? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Triggered? No - that would be you hence the ad hominem attack.

 

Listening to Fox News and Jesse right now - he just had Ron Johnson and Tulsi on - lmao - not a word about todays Trump discoveries - but everything about Hillary being the worst since Watergate.

 

Question - why didn’t the FBI and DOJ do anything about Hillary when they had four years of Trump reign?

 

Follow the money

[Westside]

40 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Triggered? No - that would be you hence the ad hominem attack.

 

Listening to Fox News and Jesse right now - he just had Ron Johnson and Tulsi on - lmao - not a word about todays Trump discoveries - but everything about Hillary being the worst since Watergate.

 

Question - why didn’t the FBI and DOJ do anything about Hillary when they had four years of Trump reign?

 

Follow the money

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

Triggered? No - that would be you hence the ad hominem attack.

 

Listening to Fox News and Jesse right now - he just had Ron Johnson and Tulsi on - lmao - not a word about todays Trump discoveries - but everything about Hillary being the worst since Watergate.

 

Question - why didn’t the FBI and DOJ do anything about Hillary when they had four years of Trump reign?

 

Follow the money

Ad hominem? Was that today’s seventh grade vocabulary word? Nice! Use it in a sentence two more times and it’s yours for life. 

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

 

Question - why didn’t the FBI and DOJ do anything about Hillary when they had four years of Trump reign?

 

 

 

Let's see.................I'll take one shot at this..

 

Because Trump isn't a conniving politician that understood how to use the power of the State to crush his enemies while the entire media establishment covers for him.

 

 

[BillStime]

34 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Let's see.................I'll take one shot at this..

 

Because Trump isn't a conniving politician that understood how to use the power of the State to crush his enemies while the entire media establishment covers for him.

 

 

Not conniving? 
 

No?

 

Conald just weaponized the DOJ to get phone and email data from Democrat politicians and reporters.

 

He took advantage of his own donors by auto checking the recurring donation flag.

 

Not conniving? 
 

 

 

[aristocrat]

36 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Not conniving? 
 

No?

 

Conald just weaponized the DOJ to get phone and email data from Democrat politicians and reporters.

 

He took advantage of his own donors by auto checking the recurring donation flag.

 

Not conniving? 
 

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2013/05/doj-got-reporter-phone-records/amp

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

Not conniving? 
 

No?

 

Conald just weaponized the DOJ to get phone and email data from Democrat politicians and reporters.

 

He took advantage of his own donors by auto checking the recurring donation flag.

 

Not conniving? 
 

 

 

 

 

No just not true.  

 

 

 

news.

[BillStime]

26 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

No just not true.  

 

 

 

news.

 

But that is EXACTLY what Trump did...

 

 

[BillStime]

What a mess

 

 

[BillStime]

Rough week for Conald 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

Devastating news.... haha

 

 

 

 

Should have doubts about all the b.s. he's been alleged of.  

 

6 years now.  At some point y'all will get em

[T&C]

42 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

Devastating news.... haha

 

 

 

 

Should have doubts about all the b.s. he's been alleged of.  

 

6 years now.  At some point y'all will get em

Article:

 

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2022/02/23/prosecutors-manhattan-trump-criminal-probe-resign

[Doc]

You mean...they don't got him now?  LOL!

 

He's either the greatest criminal mastermind ever (seeing as how he can't be caught) or the target of major hoaxes.  I think I know which one...

[B-Man]

 

 

 

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG: 

 

2 Prosecutors Leading N.Y. Trump Inquiry Resign, Clouding Case’s Future. 

 

“The resignations came after the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, was said to have expressed doubts about the case, and amid a monthlong pause in the presentation of evidence to a grand jury.”

 

 

 

It’s a . . . Trumped-up . . . prosecution and everyone knows it. Some people do have a sense of shame.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/nyregion/trump-ny-fraud-investigation.html?smid=url-share

 

 

[BillStime]

23 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG: 

 

2 Prosecutors Leading N.Y. Trump Inquiry Resign, Clouding Case’s Future. 

 

“The resignations came after the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, was said to have expressed doubts about the case, and amid a monthlong pause in the presentation of evidence to a grand jury.”

 

 

 

It’s a . . . Trumped-up . . . prosecution and everyone knows it. Some people do have a sense of shame.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/nyregion/trump-ny-fraud-investigation.html?smid=url-share

 

 

Yea Bonnie - message here is: don’t F with the mafia 

Idiots

[Orlando Tim]

18 hours ago, BillStime said:

Yea Bonnie - message here is: don’t F with the mafia 

Idiots

How is the Mafia related to this story? Did they tell the prosecutors to quit?

[B-Man]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

How is the Mafia related to this story? Did they tell the prosecutors to quit?

 

Tim,

 

the message here is that Bills is comparing Trump to the mafia.

 

It is childish and false, but that is what he/she does.

 

There is NO reason to ask him to explain any of his posts.

 

Please try to refrain from that in the future.

 

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

Tim,

 

the message here is that Bills is comparing Trump to the mafia.

 

It is childish and false, but that is what he/she does.

 

There is NO reason to ask him to explain any of his posts.

 

Please try to refrain from that in the future.

 

 

 

without the NFL on right now I need alternate forms of entertainment and I enjoy reading absurd things, so stop ruining my entertainment