Trump stole top secret nuclear docs - greatest security risk in US history - MORE TAPES!!!

[ChiGoose]

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. 

[Tommy Callahan]

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.

 

 

[ChiGoose]

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. 

[B-Man]

 

 

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/

 

.

[The Frankish Reich]

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"

[ChiGoose]

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?

[The Frankish Reich]

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.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

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.

[ChiGoose]

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. 

[Tommy Callahan]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

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?

[Tommy Callahan]

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. 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

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?

[The Frankish Reich]

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.

 

[SoCal Deek]

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. 

[ChiGoose]

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…

[Joe Ferguson forever]

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

[Joe Ferguson forever]

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...

[SoCal Deek]

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. 

[L Ron Burgundy]

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

 

[BillStime]

Hey Karen Psyop - check this out - there are MORE tapes!  
 

Can you believe it?

 

@BillsFanNC

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Judge Orders Release of More Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Information in Trump Classified Docs Case

by Jack Phillips

 

More portions of the federal government’s search warrant affidavit for Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home can now be unsealed, ruled a judge in connection to the former president’s classified documents case.

 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart wrote Wednesday that more sealed parts of the affidavit that was used in the FBI raid in August 2022 “should be unsealed.”

 

However, the entirety of the affidavit shouldn’t be unsealed, he wrote, giving the Department of Justice (DOJ) until July 13 to appeal. In an order (pdf), Mr. Reinhart, who approved the unprecedented Mar-a-Lago FBI search,

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-orders-release-of-more-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-information-in-trump-classified-docs-case_5376251.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-07-06&src_cmp=mb-2023-07-06&utm_medium=email

 

 

 

 

.

[BillStime]

 

[B-Man]

 

[SectionC3]

On 6/30/2023 at 3:35 PM, 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. 

 

Hoax.  Someone can have an opinion about the weight and importance of evidence without concomitantly suggesting that due process be disregarded.

 

Also, weren't you one of the guys yelling "lock her up" and then quickly mumbling "after due process is afforded" at rallies in 2016?  Or maybe I heard it wrong and you weren't so mumbling. 

[SectionC3]

On 6/30/2023 at 7:21 PM, SoCal Deek said:

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. 

 

But your interest in due process was kindled only when Trump became a target of an investigation.  Lock her up?  Apparently that was totally cool. Due process for immigrants?  Apparently nobody read the part about the constitution applying to people, not simply to citizens.  When the looting starts, the shooting starts?  Not a clarion call to take justice into one's own hands. 

[BillStime]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

Bonnie and Paul both downplaying the word ALSO

 

lmao

 

idiots 

[ChiGoose]

5 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

Ok, honest question here:

 

What is he trying to say? This tweet seems poorly worded Is it:

 

1. The FBI found NO state secrets, but just personal effects in the boxes; or

 

2. The FBI found state secrets but also in the boxes were personal effects?

Because those are two WILDLY different things in terms of Trump’s legal exposure 

 

[BillStime]

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

23 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Ok, honest question here:

 

What is he trying to say? This tweet seems poorly worded Is it:

 

1. The FBI found NO state secrets, but just personal effects in the boxes; or

 

2. The FBI found state secrets but also in the boxes were personal effects?

Because those are two WILDLY different things in terms of Trump’s legal exposure 

 

He's trying to say "hey dummy MAGA's, pay no attention to actual evidence"...

[SoCal Deek]

On 7/8/2023 at 11:46 AM, SectionC3 said:

 

But your interest in due process was kindled only when Trump became a target of an investigation.  Lock her up?  Apparently that was totally cool. Due process for immigrants?  Apparently nobody read the part about the constitution applying to people, not simply to citizens.  When the looting starts, the shooting starts?  Not a clarion call to take justice into one's own hands. 

Ha! Yes you’re right “Due process her up!” would’ve been a much catchier slogan. 😂

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Ha! Yes you’re right “Due process her up!” would’ve been a much catchier slogan. 😂

We know.  It's all about the slogans...4-7 words are optimal

[Wacka]

All hail @ChiGoose , king of the tards!

Edited July 10, 2023 by Wacka

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

We know.  It's all about the slogans...4-7 words are optimal

“As Long As It Takes” ….now that’s a good one! 👍

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

“As Long As It Takes” ….now that’s a good one! 👍

He's 78?  Desantis...poof.  LOSER!

[John from Riverside]

On 7/7/2023 at 4:16 AM, BillStime said:

Hey Karen Psyop - check this out - there are MORE tapes!  
 

Can you believe it?

 

@BillsFanNC

 

I’m actually feeling for nauta

 

a little bit

 

he’s a veteran and understands the meaning of the word, loyalty even if it is misplaced, he’s also the guy most likely to go to prison

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

8 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

He's 78?  Desantis...poof.  LOSER!

You must’ve been posting either very late or a little tipsy….because I have no idea what this means. 😉

[Joe Ferguson forever]

18 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You must’ve been posting either very late or a little tipsy….because I have no idea what this means. 😉

it means MAGA's leader is very old and the heir apparent is a loser...perhaps as long as it takes was unclear.  I thought you meant for MAGA to take power.

Edited July 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, redtail hawk said:

it means MAGA's leader is very old and the heir apparent is a loser...

Yes, I got that much, but it made no sense as an example of one of your 5 to 7 word campaign slogans. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Yes, I got that much, but it made no sense as an example of one of your 5 to 7 word campaign slogans. 

ummm, see edit above...