A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

[Chef Jim]

15 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

I think the issue is T is the fascist right’s presidential candidate. Not for long. Dude made a mess. 

 

 

What makes him a fascists?

 

What mess did he make with details on how it is his fault.  

 

Should be fun.  

[SoCal Deek]

So here’s the part that I found hilarious….which I heard on the Today Show this morning.  Apparently the Keystone Cops who conducted the raid scooped up everything in a desk drawer, including his expired passports. They ‘claim’ those were taken because they were in the same drawer as some of these secret documents. So, they mean to tell us that these nitwits can’t tell the difference between a passport and a piece of paper? Really? Were they supposedly in some sort of a big hurry? Why exactly? They took NINE HOURS to go through things. Were they afraid the homeowner was going to burst in on them? Sounds an awful like an illegal search and seizure to me. Ham handed nonsense. 

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

This picture is like a rohrschach test, it is so messy because the FBI made it look like that, Trump clearly at some point had the legal right to all of the information present, unless somehow he got it after leaving the white house. It is also not proof that the FBI is harassing him because it is what they have to do with all evidence during a raid. All it proves is what we already knew.

Hoax. 

51 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So here’s the part that I found hilarious….which I heard on the Today Show this morning.  Apparently the Keystone Cops who conducted the raid scooped up everything in a desk drawer, including his expired passports. They ‘claim’ those were taken because they were in the same drawer as some of these secret documents. So, they mean to tell us that these nitwits can’t tell the difference between a passport and a piece of paper? Really? Were they supposedly in some sort of a big hurry? Why exactly? They took NINE HOURS to go through things. Were they afraid the homeowner was going to burst in on them? Sounds an awful like an illegal search and seizure to me. Ham handed nonsense. 

Hoax.  The agents shouldn’t make judgments about the papers to be collected while on site, particularly because the sensitivity of some of the documents in question is such that many, if not all, of those agents lacked clearance to review them.  Any overreach could be (and, to my understanding, was) corrected later. 

Edited August 31, 2022 by SectionC3

[Orlando Tim]

26 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax. . 

Ok, what new info did you learn from this picture?

[snafu]

3 hours ago, Nineforty said:

Dude.

 

•Its standard practice for FBI agents to catalog and inventory when conducting a search warrant, including photographs.

 

For obvious reasons, and not so obvious ones.

 

•the only reason they "released" that photo (it was in a Federal Court filing you dimwit) was because the former President filed a bull#### motion, allowing the DOJ to provide more evidence of the criming and obstruction. If Trump doesn't file a motion destined to fail, we dont have that photo and all that it portends. 

 

There is only one side here slinging poo, and it ain't the DOJ. 

 

If you lived outside of the right-wing media echo chamber, maybe you would understand that that photo provides some new information and confirms a lot of the reporting to-date. 

I’m not defending anyone. I’m waiting for some facts to emerge. Right now there’s only posturing from Trump AND from the DOJ. The photo released by the DOJ is posturing. 

I’m just saying that photo has no context and it doesn’t prove any more than the fact that there were documents in the residence. We already knew that. There’s an entire inventory. The inventory says “documents marked classified”.  I believed it at the time they released the inventory.
 

You’re speculating. I’d rather wait until this whole story is developed before making any conclusions. 
 

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by snafu

[B-Man]

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

What makes him a fascists?

 

What mess did he make with details on how it is his fault.  

 

Should be fun.  

Only to you Jim. 
 

 

[ALF]

Even if Trump were charged with a crime it would be impossible to have a impartial jury and convict. Graham would be right about riots. Irv is right , what a mess. 

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

Only to you Jim. 
 

 

And your point?  I only come here for my amusement not yours. 

7 minutes ago, ALF said:

Even if Trump were charged with a crime it would be impossible to have a impartial jury and convict. Graham would be right about riots. Irv is right , what a mess. 

Now you’re getting it.  I really think this has been the whole motive behind all this. To get the far right whack jobs to show their ugly side so the left can point and say “SEE!!! This is what we warned you about!”   

[Gene Frenkle]

8 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

Quick question.  What do you all think are the chances that a high percentage of former Presidents have walked away with copies of classified documents? 
 

Personally I think it’s likely pretty high.  🤷🏻‍♂️

 

No proof of any of that, so what's the point? So far it seems like we have definitive proof on exactly one ex-president and he had A LOT.

 

Seeing the regs twist themselves all up to make this "no big deal" is kinda funny, kinda sad. You betcha!

[SectionC3]

10 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Ok, what new info did you learn from this picture?

That this is worse than I thought. 

7 hours ago, ALF said:

Even if Trump were charged with a crime it would be impossible to have a impartial jury and convict. Graham would be right about riots. Irv is right , what a mess. 

Hoax.  

[Orlando Tim]

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

That this is worse than I thought. 

What is worse? 

[Chef Jim]

8 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

No proof of any of that, so what's the point? So far it seems like we have definitive proof on exactly one ex-president and he had A LOT.

 

Seeing the regs twist themselves all up to make this "no big deal" is kinda funny, kinda sad. You betcha!

Up until recently we, as the general public, had no proof Trump had taken classified documents. The point was to open that up for discussion regarding the possibility that this may be common. 
 

And you just assume my point for bringing this up was to make this regarding Trump “no big deal”.  You can join @SectionC3 in the very wrong assumption room.  Good job. 

[Nineforty]

 

[SoCal Deek]

13 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax. 

Hoax.  The agents shouldn’t make judgments about the papers to be collected while on site, particularly because the sensitivity of some of the documents in question is such that many, if not all, of those agents lacked clearance to review them.  Any overreach could be (and, to my understanding, was) corrected later. 

Ha! Do you have a passport? Ever held one in your hand? It is NOTHING like a piece of paper. This is yet another reason why Trump’s lawyers needed to be there when this seizure was being conducted. And believe me you’ll be demanding the same representation if it ever happens to you! 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

Up until recently we, as the general public, had no proof Trump had taken classified documents. The point was to open that up for discussion regarding the possibility that this may be common. 
 

And you just assume my point for bringing this up was to make this regarding Trump “no big deal”.  You can join @SectionC3 in the very wrong assumption room.  Good job. 

Hoax.  It may also not be common.  Or, better put, it’s not common.  Or, even better put, it’s unheard of.  What isn’t unheard of is that you have another ridiculous hoaxy position that only the “good people” in QAnon believe.  

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Ha! Do you have a passport? Ever held one in your hand? It is NOTHING like a piece of paper. This is yet another reason why Trump’s lawyers needed to be there when this seizure was being conducted. And believe me you’ll be demanding the same representation if it ever happens to you! 

Last I checked a passport is comprised of paper and is a document.  And no, the lawyer does not need to be present lest he or she interfere with the search.  And, on top of that, any prejudice from the temporary seizure of the passports was minimal inasmuch as those documents were promptly returned to Trump.  

 

I don’t like to tell people what to do.  But in this instance, the issue that would concern me most, and the place to which I would direct my attention, is the loose secrets and threat to national security, rather than whether the temporary seizure of passports deprived Trump of his ability to visit the Glasgow McDonald’s. 

[Chef Jim]

26 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  It may also not be common.  Or, better put, it’s not common.  Or, even better put, it’s unheard of.  What isn’t unheard of is that you have another ridiculous hoaxy position that only the “good people” in QAnon believe.  

Unheard of?  Yes, but why?  You trust every President? Vice President? Member of Congress?  They almost all have access to some level is confidential information/documentation and not one had never taken any of it out of the sacred halls of government?  That Trump is the only one who has been investigating for this?   Gullibility is a real bad trait as a lawyer. 
 

 

[SectionC3]

23 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Unheard of?  Yes, but why?  You trust every President? Vice President? Member of Congress?  They almost all have access to some level is confidential information/documentation and not one had never taken any of it out of the sacred halls of government?  That Trump is the only one who has been investigating for this?   Gullibility is a real bad trait as a lawyer. 
 

 

Hoax.  You’re getting conspiratorial now.  Which, I suppose, is unsurprising given the Q circles in which you hang.  

 

Face it.  Your main guy got caught with some pretty sensitive stuff for which he now has to answer.  Whining about what other people may or may not have possibly done if Jupiter was in line with Venus during a harvest moon in a leap year  with a La Niña isn’t going to change anything in that respect. 

2 hours ago, Nineforty said:

 

Trump should have Chef Jim Crow get admitted pro hac vice to help him out on this one.  Could drop the spatula on the government and show them what’s what.  A fine change to apply his reverse Pee Wee Herman defense: “I know I am but what are you?”  Should be wild!

[Chef Jim]

13 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  You’re getting conspiratorial now.  Which, I suppose, is unsurprising given the Q circles in which you hang.  

 

Face it.  Your main guy got caught with some pretty sensitive stuff for which he now has to answer.  Whining about what other people may or may not have possibly done if Jupiter was in line with Venus during a harvest moon in a leap year  with a La Niña isn’t going to change anything in that respect. 

 

Please counselor.  Would you identify to the court what Q Circles I run in?  
 

Until you can we’re pretty much done here. For someone who likes to throw out the term hoax you sure spew a lot of them. 
 

[TSOL]

52 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  You’re getting conspiratorial now.  Which, I suppose, is unsurprising given the Q circles in which you hang.  

 

Face it.  Your main guy got caught with some pretty sensitive stuff for which he now has to answer.  Whining about what other people may or may not have possibly done if Jupiter was in line with Venus during a harvest moon in a leap year  with a La Niña isn’t going to change anything in that respect. 

Trump should have Chef Jim Crow get admitted pro hac vice to help him out on this one.  Could drop the spatula on the government and show them what’s what.  A fine change to apply his reverse Pee Wee Herman defense: “I know I am but what are you?”  Should be wild!

 

 

C-section, you are a master debater 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

No proof of any of that, so what's the point? So far it seems like we have definitive proof on exactly one ex-president and he had A LOT.

 

Seeing the regs twist themselves all up to make this "no big deal" is kinda funny, kinda sad. You betcha!

I love this argument, it's one of my favorites.

 

The point is that to the voting public, context usually matters.  Sure, the occasional self-righteous poindexter rolls out with "I don't want to talk about that!!" when wanting to fixate on a particular subject, but when it comes to hot button issues like this, the question "What exactly is the standard criminally, civilly, and what's considered acceptable in spite of rules that may date back as far as 1776?".    

 

In context, all the hand-wringing liberals worried about Trump and authoritarian behavior have been completely comfortable with the following authoritarian behavior:

 

• Alleging collusion with Russia while being completely comfortable with collusion with a foreign national and a phony story;
• Expressing concern about a second or third hand retelling of an allegation of Ukrainian shakedown while being completely comfortable with an on-camera acknowledgement of a Ukrainian shakedown;
• The DOJ executing an armed raid on the opposition party purportedly searching for illegally held confidential+ material, while extending unprecedented courtesy to allow a candidate judged to be exceptionally reckless with confidential+ material to perform self-reported wrongdoing and delete whatever it was that she felt the FBI didn't need to see;
• Outrage over claims that an election was stolen by one candidate, complete comfort with allegations of treason, illegitimate elections and a president installed in a coup by their faves;
• The seizure of non-relevant material and documents, including allegations that material protected under attorney-client privilege was seized, in spite of the size, scope and number of agents who participated in the search;
• The request by the DOJ to deny Trump's request to assign a Special Master to provide additional oversight on this matter, in essence saying "Trust us, national security is at risk!" , a standard used throughout history to bamboozle the American people and potentially represent that pesky darkness where democracy is thought to die;

I dunno on this one.  We've been told by the highest ranking FBI agent in the land that no reasonable prosecutor prosecutes folks for sending classified+ material on the G-mail, that factual information destined to impact voter choice at a critical election was Russian intel, and that social media outlets manipulated data that might have changed the outcome as well. 

 

I think the wisest course of action is to recognize that whatever side you're on, the other side is demonstrably full of $%$# and the government should not be trusted implicitly.  You n' yours should remember how it feels, you were there a couple years ago. 

 

 

[snafu]

16 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax. 

Hoax.  The agents shouldn’t make judgments about the papers to be collected while on site, particularly because the sensitivity of some of the documents in question is such that many, if not all, of those agents lacked clearance to review them.  Any overreach could be (and, to my understanding, was) corrected later. 

 

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  You’re getting conspiratorial now.  Which, I suppose, is unsurprising given the Q circles in which you hang.  

 

Face it.  Your main guy got caught with some pretty sensitive stuff for which he now has to answer.  Whining about what other people may or may not have possibly done if Jupiter was in line with Venus during a harvest moon in a leap year  with a La Niña isn’t going to change anything in that respect. 

Trump should have Chef Jim Crow get admitted pro hac vice to help him out on this one.  Could drop the spatula on the government and show them what’s what.  A fine change to apply his reverse Pee Wee Herman defense: “I know I am but what are you?”  Should be wild!

 

 

You're right about one thing.  The agents shouldn't make judgments about the nature of the papers.

And it isn't okay for them to release photos of the papers so that people like you can speculate about the nature of the papers and make your own judgments

 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

17 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

 

You're right about one thing.  The agents shouldn't make judgments about the nature of the papers.

And it isn't okay for them to release photos of the papers so that people like you can speculate about the nature of the papers and make your own judgments

 

 

 

That is indeed not right. The constitution requires very specific warrants be issued. The government is explicitly not allowed to come into your home, vacuum up anything they want, take it all back to their office, and then sift through the findings. 

[Gene Frenkle]

18 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

Up until recently we, as the general public, had no proof Trump had taken classified documents. The point was to open that up for discussion regarding the possibility that this may be common. 
 

And you just assume my point for bringing this up was to make this regarding Trump “no big deal”.  You can join @SectionC3 in the very wrong assumption room.  Good job. 

 

But there is actual proof with Trump. Lots. The rest is speculation based on what? What you would do? What you might imagine presidents might do? Who gives a *****? What makes your imagination important? There are lots of facts here. Those are actually real. Remember when we cared about real things?

[BillsFanNC]

18 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

That is indeed not right. The constitution requires very specific warrants be issued. The government is explicitly not allowed to come into your home, vacuum up anything they want, take it all back to their office, and then sift through the findings. 

 

I think if you take a magnifying glass and squint really hard, you can find where it says in the constitution: "except Trump"

[Chef Jim]

6 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

But there is actual proof with Trump. Lots. The rest is speculation based on what? What you would do? What you might imagine presidents might do? Who gives a *****? What makes your imagination important? There are lots of facts here. Those are actually real. Remember when we cared about real things?

 

The proof Trump took documents has nothing to do with my point.  

 

My speculation is based on human nature especially the human nature of the type of person that gets into politics.  If you think no politician has ever taken confidential documents I think you're being extremely naive.