ChiGoose Posted June 29, 2023 Share Posted June 29, 2023 24 minutes ago, Chris farley said: Woosh. released so the MSM could parrot the narratives that are now being used as organic by supporters. Maybe, just maybe, the reason the tape is being reported as damning to Trump’s chances is because it’s damning to Trump’s chances. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted June 29, 2023 Share Posted June 29, 2023 6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Maybe, just maybe, the reason the tape is being reported as damning to Trump’s chances is because it’s damning to Trump’s chances. if thats what MSNBC said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 29, 2023 Share Posted June 29, 2023 36 minutes ago, Chris farley said: if thats what MSNBC said. No idea what MSNBC said. I don’t watch tv news. But the coverage from actual lawyers in the actual legal field with actual experience with criminal matters seems to have a consensus: the tape is incredibly damaging for Trump’s case. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 Latest Leaks Don’t Incriminate Trump, They Incriminate Democrats by Drew Allen It has long been universally established that when it comes to the possession and declassification of so-called “classified documents,” U.S. Presidents enjoy a unique power and privilege. In 2017, the New York Times acknowledged that “Mr. Trump has the power to declassify or disclose anything he wants.” The Times quoted Steven Afterfood, a government secrecy specialist, who said that “the classification system is not based on a law” and that “it is an expression of presidential authority, and that means that the president and his designees decide what is classified, and they have the essentially unlimited authority to declassify at will. https://amgreatness.com/2023/06/28/latest-leaks-dont-incriminate-trump-they-incriminate-democrats/ . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 19 minutes ago, B-Man said: Latest Leaks Don’t Incriminate Trump, They Incriminate Democrats by Drew Allen It has long been universally established that when it comes to the possession and declassification of so-called “classified documents,” U.S. Presidents enjoy a unique power and privilege. In 2017, the New York Times acknowledged that “Mr. Trump has the power to declassify or disclose anything he wants.” The Times quoted Steven Afterfood, a government secrecy specialist, who said that “the classification system is not based on a law” and that “it is an expression of presidential authority, and that means that the president and his designees decide what is classified, and they have the essentially unlimited authority to declassify at will. https://amgreatness.com/2023/06/28/latest-leaks-dont-incriminate-trump-they-incriminate-democrats/ . Mr. Drew Allen didn't get the memo. This was the APRIL 2023 defense. "I could have declassified it when I was President, now I can't" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 54 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Mr. Drew Allen didn't get the memo. This was the APRIL 2023 defense. "I could have declassified it when I was President, now I can't" Not to mention that, while classifications is important and drives the headlines, none of the charges require the documents to be classified. Also can’t find much about this Drew Allen guy. Where did he get his law degree from? Does he practice or have a specialization? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 11 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Also can’t find much about this Drew Allen guy. Where did he get his law degree from? Does he practice or have a specialization? Yeah, right. Drew Allen, AKA ‘the Millennial Minister of Truth,’ is the host of the ‘Drew Allen Show’ podcast. He is an author, columnist, and political analyst. His voice has been heard on radio stations all across the country and his columns published at American Greatness, PJ Media, Bizpac Review, Townhall, Human Events, to name a few. I wouldn't mind if he presented himself as a reporter/journalist, the kind of "I spoke with [blank], a constitutional and national security law specialist at [blank], and he told me that ... ." But these guys act like they themselves have some expertise. No degrees or even areas of expertise - just the self-appointed "Millennial Minister of Truth." And those are the "sources" people who post here rely on. Are they lazy? Uninterested in actually learning or understanding the issues? Simply trolling? Self-deluding? You tell me. It's just a stupid way to live. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 9 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: And those are the "sources" people who post here rely on. Are they lazy? Uninterested in actually learning or understanding the issues? Simply trolling? Self-deluding? You tell me. It's just a stupid way to live. I'll take self deluding for $200, Alex. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 19 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Yeah, right. Drew Allen, AKA ‘the Millennial Minister of Truth,’ is the host of the ‘Drew Allen Show’ podcast. He is an author, columnist, and political analyst. His voice has been heard on radio stations all across the country and his columns published at American Greatness, PJ Media, Bizpac Review, Townhall, Human Events, to name a few. I wouldn't mind if he presented himself as a reporter/journalist, the kind of "I spoke with [blank], a constitutional and national security law specialist at [blank], and he told me that ... ." But these guys act like they themselves have some expertise. No degrees or even areas of expertise - just the self-appointed "Millennial Minister of Truth." And those are the "sources" people who post here rely on. Are they lazy? Uninterested in actually learning or understanding the issues? Simply trolling? Self-deluding? You tell me. It's just a stupid way to live. Usually they take the approach to experts as the equivalent of getting the 5th dentist from “4 out of 5 dentists recommend…” Often, that’s someone with an outside the mainstream opinion that’s defensible though not necessarily definitive. Other times, it’s like it’s a dentist recommending you chew on aluminum foil instead of gum and it turns out it’s Dr. Wrap Reynolds of the Reynolds Wrap fortune running a grift. Here, they’re not even trying. Just finding someone, anyone, who agrees with them and taking it as gospel regardless of the person’s qualifications or strength of argument. Non-lawyers giving legal opinions here. Another thread had people citing a British comedian for strategy on the war in Ukraine. Maybe next they’ll get a tv star to tell them what the optimal marginal tax rate is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Non-lawyers giving legal opinions here. Ah, so you all lawyers. its telling/expected how you all went after the poster, to then run with how pathetic anyone not in your little club is inferior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 1 minute ago, Chris farley said: Ah, so you all lawyers. its telling/expected how you all went after the poster, to then run with how pathetic anyone not in your little club is inferior. Is it a requirement that to be on this board, you have to have a severe lack in reading comprehension skills? I was challenging the idea of citing an article from someone with absolutely no public experience in the law for legal analysis. I am sure there are some lawyers out there who have views that maybe the tape isn't damaging (though that is certainly the minority view), so why not cite them? If someone who had never watched a football game before wrote an article about how teams should start every drive by running up the middle three straight times, would you cite them as a reliable source of football analysis? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Is it a requirement that to be on this board, you have to have a severe lack in reading comprehension skills? I was challenging the idea of citing an article from someone with absolutely no public experience in the law for legal analysis. I am sure there are some lawyers out there who have views that maybe the tape isn't damaging (though that is certainly the minority view), so why not cite them? If someone who had never watched a football game before wrote an article about how teams should start every drive by running up the middle three straight times, would you cite them as a reliable source of football analysis? Bla, bla, bla. what you were doing is a weak ass attempt ad hominem. its kind of your thing. that and being wrong. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 11 minutes ago, Chris farley said: Bla, bla, bla. what you were doing is a weak ass attempt ad hominem. its kind of your thing. that and being wrong. I guess citing experts in specific fields is too difficult when the experts disagree with you, huh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 39 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Another thread had people citing a British comedian for strategy on the war in Ukraine. Yeah, but not just any British comedian; a heroin addict British comedian. So special insight. 40 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Maybe next they’ll get a tv star to tell them what the optimal marginal tax rate is. They already tried that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Is it a requirement that to be on this board, you have to have a severe lack in reading comprehension skills? I was challenging the idea of citing an article from someone with absolutely no public experience in the law for legal analysis. I am sure there are some lawyers out there who have views that maybe the tape isn't damaging (though that is certainly the minority view), so why not cite them? If someone who had never watched a football game before wrote an article about how teams should start every drive by running up the middle three straight times, would you cite them as a reliable source of football analysis? Goose, you really crack me up! According to your theory we’d don’t need a court system. Everyone who’s a lawyer would just agree to agree all the time. No need for a prosecution, defense, judge or jury. Luckily it doesn’t work that way! Or at least it never did pre-Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Goose, you really crack me up! According to your theory we’d don’t need a court system. Everyone who’s a lawyer would just agree to agree all the time. No need for a prosecution, defense, judge or jury. Luckily it doesn’t work that way! Or at least it never did pre-Trump. What theory is that? Please tell me what I believe since you seem to know so well. All I’m saying is that if you want to cite someone for their legal analysis and have people respect that, maybe cite someone with a legal background or experience in the law. It’s fine for people to have their own opinions but if you’re trying to convince someone of something in a particular field, maybe use someone with experience in that field… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Goose, you really crack me up! According to your theory we’d don’t need a court system. Everyone who’s a lawyer would just agree to agree all the time. No need for a prosecution, defense, judge or jury. Luckily it doesn’t work that way! Or at least it never did pre-Trump. The lengths you guys go to defend this terrible ex prez pos… it’s remarkably sad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: What theory is that? Please tell me what I believe since you seem to know so well. All I’m saying is that if you want to cite someone for their legal analysis and have people respect that, maybe cite someone with a legal background or experience in the law. It’s fine for people to have their own opinions but if you’re trying to convince someone of something in a particular field, maybe use someone with experience in that field… sorta like infectious diseases experts for Covid questions... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted June 30, 2023 Share Posted June 30, 2023 1 hour ago, redtail hawk said: The lengths you guys go to defend this terrible ex prez pos… it’s remarkably sad Hawk…I’m not personally defending anyone by my comment. However if YOU want to toss out the concept of due process please tell us all now. Goose appears to believe that because he’s a lawyer he gets to make these decisions. Fortunately for the rest of society, that’s not the role of lawyers in our country. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Ron Burgundy Posted July 1, 2023 Share Posted July 1, 2023 6 hours ago, Chris farley said: Bla, bla, bla. what you were doing is a weak ass attempt ad hominem. its kind of your thing. that and being wrong. Weak ass is whining ad hominem every other post. If he's so wrong point it out instead of crying in your cheerios and running away. That's kind of YOUR thing. 6 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Yeah, right. Drew Allen, AKA ‘the Millennial Minister of Truth,’ is the host of the ‘Drew Allen Show’ podcast. He is an author, columnist, and political analyst. His voice has been heard on radio stations all across the country and his columns published at American Greatness, PJ Media, Bizpac Review, Townhall, Human Events, to name a few. I wouldn't mind if he presented himself as a reporter/journalist, the kind of "I spoke with [blank], a constitutional and national security law specialist at [blank], and he told me that ... ." But these guys act like they themselves have some expertise. No degrees or even areas of expertise - just the self-appointed "Millennial Minister of Truth." And those are the "sources" people who post here rely on. Are they lazy? Uninterested in actually learning or understanding the issues? Simply trolling? Self-deluding? You tell me. It's just a stupid way to live. Frank, were you really expecting something of substance from the right wing spam King? Guy just takes any right wing absurdity and vomits it here. Jack Poso Julie Kelly 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts