Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Just now, Pokebball said: You know, some of us are really exhausted by all of the telegraphing. We've had 7 1/2 years of telegraphing. Out in Wyoming I call that all hat, and no cattle! so u'd rather him indict him now for those crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: so u'd rather him indict him now for those crimes? Prove his guilt and lock him up, or let's move on for Pistol Pete's sake. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 hour ago, Doc said: What ruling? What dictatorial things are you thinking he's going to do (that he didn't do the first time)? Dems are always saying that Trump/Repubs will end democracy. Again he specifically said "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." That sentence didn't make it into his speech by accident. The difference is you don’t see Democrats storming the capital Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Just now, Pokebball said: Prove his guilt and lock him up, or let's move on for Pistol Pete's sake. We'd love to. tell him to stop stalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: We'd love to. tell him to stop stalling. How much more time do you need? He's got a right to a speedy trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 Just now, Pokebball said: He's got a right to a speedy trial. he wants it to last past the election so he can pardon himself. it's you , not us. do u agree with his tactic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 12 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: he wants it to last past the election so he can pardon himself. it's you , not us. do u agree with his tactic? It is pretty evident that Trump’s legal strategy is not about winning his cases. It’s just to delay them as much as possible hoping he can get elected president before facing any judgment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) Just now, ChiGoose said: It is pretty evident that Trump’s legal strategy is not about winning his cases. It’s just to delay them as much as possible hoping he can get elected president before facing any judgment. yes, and we know maga's will never publicly condemn anything he does. they believe he's going to help them.....lol Edited January 4 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 10 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: yes, and we know maga's will never publicly condemn anything he does. they believe he's going to help them.....lol Trump is a POS. I want him to stop stalling so the Republicans can get a viable candidate on the ticket. I also want those on the left to speed it up, I feel like some of these cases ar le being intentionally slow walked to screw with the 2024 rep ticket. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 59 minutes ago, Pokebball said: How much more time do you need? He's got a right to a speedy trial. This is confusing to me The prosecution would like nothing more than to get this trial started tomorrow Trump is using every delay tactic he can find I would love to hear an explanation of why I shouldn’t think that Trump is trying to use delay tactics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Just now, John from Riverside said: This is confusing to me The prosecution would like nothing more than to get this trial started tomorrow Trump is using every delay tactic he can find There is a very sweet spot for the dems on any kind of Trump conviction John If you don't think both sides are playing politics here I'd suggest you reconsider your opinion on the topic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: This is confusing to me The prosecution would like nothing more than to get this trial started tomorrow Trump is using every delay tactic he can find Now do the 7 1/2 year old claims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Just now, Tenhigh said: There is a very sweet spot for the dems on any kind of Trump conviction John If you don't think both sides are playing politics here I'd suggest you reconsider your opinion on the topic. Oh, I have no doubt, believing that both sides are playing politics here But this is a federal criminal trial trials you don’t bring those up unless you have proof like ironclad proof I am here is Trump is in fact delaying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Just now, John from Riverside said: Oh, I have no doubt, believing that both sides are playing politics here But this is a federal criminal trial trials you don’t bring those up unless you have proof like ironclad proof I am here is Trump is in fact delaying Of course he is. So is Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, Pokebball said: Now do the 7 1/2 year old claims I moved past those once received Mueller’s report We are talking about federal criminal indictments, not political ones now Withholding classified documents, and trying to hide them is a crime it’s not a political crime. It’s a send you to a pound me in the ass prison crime Just now, Tenhigh said: Of course he is. So is Smith. Explain to me how Smith is delaying 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, John from Riverside said: I moved past those once received Mueller’s report We are talking about federal criminal indictments, not political ones now Withholding classified documents, and trying to hide them is a crime it’s not a political crime. It’s a send you to a pound me in the ass prison crime Explain to me how Smith is delaying The fact that the trial wasn't scheduled to start until this year, for one. If he had all of the ironclad proof you describe he could have done this 6 months ago. I think his goal is to let Trump get the nomination before he is convicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, Tenhigh said: The fact that the trial wasn't scheduled to start until this year, for one. If he had all of the ironclad proof you describe he could have done this 6 months ago. I think his goal is to let Trump get the nomination before he is convicted. You do realize that there are a bunch of other factors regarding that the judges have to clear time on their schedules they have to make their case If anything, delaying hurts Jack Smith’s pace because it comes perilously close to the election, and that’s not counting appeals, the possibility of Trump winning, and then pardon himself is very real because of the timeframe I am kind of curious on how do people feel if Trump is convicted of these crimes and then pardons himself? Are they still gonna play partisan politics on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenhigh Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, John from Riverside said: You do realize that there are a bunch of other factors regarding that the judges have to clear time on their schedules they have to make their case If anything, delaying hurts Jack Smith’s pace because it comes perilously close to the election, and that’s not counting appeals, the possibility of Trump winning, and then pardon himself is very real because of the timeframe I am kind of curious on how do people feel if Trump is convicted of these crimes and then pardons himself? Are they still gonna play partisan politics on that? Whatever you say John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: I moved past those once received Mueller’s report We are talking about federal criminal indictments, not political ones now Withholding classified documents, and trying to hide them is a crime it’s not a political crime. It’s a send you to a pound me in the ass prison crime Not true. Withholding classified documents is arguably a run of the mill non-event, regardless of how and why they were taken into possession, regardless of whether or not classified material was potentially accessed by people without clearance, whether the handling was reckless or items vital to our national security are lost track of, and whether or not a pattern of behavior can be assumed when material are removed over multiple years from multiple different locations, so long as the Sergeant Schulz defense is raised. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 36 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: I moved past those once received Mueller’s report We are talking about federal criminal indictments, not political ones now Withholding classified documents, and trying to hide them is a crime it’s not a political crime. It’s a send you to a pound me in the ass prison crime Explain to me how Smith is delaying LOL you thinking these aren't political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Literally, none of you answered my question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 7 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: Literally, none of you answered my question What’s your question, Johnny? I’ll take a stab at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: What’s your question, Johnny? I’ll take a stab at it. It’s right there on my purse towards the end If Trump is convicted, his elected, president, and pardons himself, will you still tote the political party line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 45 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Not true. Withholding classified documents is arguably a run of the mill non-event, regardless of how and why they were taken into possession, regardless of whether or not classified material was potentially accessed by people without clearance, whether the handling was reckless or items vital to our national security are lost track of, and whether or not a pattern of behavior can be assumed when material are removed over multiple years from multiple different locations, so long as the Sergeant Schulz defense is raised. This is wrong. Taking or misplacing classified material is a grave issue and is treated as such by the law when such action is provably intentional. Unauthorized access to sensitive defense materials can jeopardize sources and methods, and can even get people killed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Just now, ChiGoose said: This is wrong. Taking or misplacing classified material is a grave issue and is treated as such by the law when such action is provably intentional. Unauthorized access to sensitive defense materials can jeopardize sources and methods, and can even get people killed. It’s absolutely wrong And I know this because I have experience in this field 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: This is wrong. Taking or misplacing classified material is a grave issue and is treated as such by the law when such action is provably intentional. Unauthorized access to sensitive defense materials can jeopardize sources and methods, and can even get people killed. The actual issue that is illegal is not that he took the documents. He’s allowed to take them, but whenever they’re asked for back and he refuses to give them and move them so that they cannot be located intentionally that is a crime. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: This is wrong. Taking or misplacing classified material is a grave issue and is treated as such by the law when such action is provably intentional. Unauthorized access to sensitive defense materials can jeopardize sources and methods, and can even get people killed. Unless it happens over a period of many years and can be considered spillage that low level staffers are mostly responsible for. Was that an attempt at parody? If not, maybe we can revisit some of your earlier posts on the topic. Good heavens. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, JDHillFan said: Unless it happens over a period of many years and can be considered spillage that low level staffers are mostly responsible for. Was that an attempt at parody? If not, maybe we can revisit some of your earlier posts on the topic. Good heavens. It’s pretty telling that explaining real and actual facts is taken as parody by people who prefer to reject reality in favor of their feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHillFan Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: It’s pretty telling that explaining real and actual facts is taken as parody by people who prefer to reject reality in favor of their feelings. I thought you jumped the shark with your “everyone’s talking about sex because gay people exist” and “human trafficking across state lines” routines. This is magnificent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: I thought you jumped the shark with your “everyone’s talking about sex because gay people exist” and “human trafficking across state lines” routines. This is magnificent! Reading comprehension is really tough, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 14 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: It’s right there on my purse towards the end If Trump is convicted, his elected, president, and pardons himself, will you still tote the political party line? I said I’d take a stab at it, and I will. Before doing so, I have to tell you that I have no idea what you mean by “tote the political party line”. My core principals are conservative, though I’d consider myself liberal on many issues. Very generally— I would prefer a candidate that believes in a smaller, more effective federal government, resolving mess at the mess at our southern border, work toward a sensible immigration policy that takes into consideration all that might want to come, reduction in federal income tax rates, and a healthy balance between onerous regulation, a sensible approach to growth/business and protecting the environment. If that candidate was a one legged person of color LBGTQ+ democrat today, I’d vote for them. So, if Trump is elected (and I would prefer he not run), convicted and pardoned himself….it would have no impact on my core beliefs. I don’t “tote a political party line” now John, I just vote like every other American who chooses to do so. If that means that someone else somehow feels compelled to castigate or criticize me for my choice, well, I’m not inclined to care. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 I told the party line I mean, if you’re Republican, you don’t want anything to happen to Republicans because of power so in someway, we try to justify someone found guilty of a federal crime pardoning themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 19 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: I thought you jumped the shark with your “everyone’s talking about sex because gay people exist” and “human trafficking across state lines” routines. This is magnificent! The King! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 34 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: This is wrong. Taking or misplacing classified material is a grave issue and is treated as such by the law when such action is provably intentional. Unauthorized access to sensitive defense materials can jeopardize sources and methods, and can even get people killed. Yeah, I would have thought so too, until, you know. “Provably intentional” has been revealed as the most recent legal weaslese to convince people that some folks possessing, maintaining and treating classified material with reckless abandon is really not a big deal when certain people are involved. Here’s the way it really plays out: taking, possessing, holding, hiding, slinging, flipping and bouncing top secret and classified information that could jeopardize sources and methods, and get some people killed, is a glorified speed bump for the right type of people. There is the law, the lofty goal, the trust placed in those responsible for our greatest secrets, and then there’s the guy who possessed all sorts of material from all sorts of stops and stashed them near the recyclable can in his lake house. His defense…”Geesh, how would I know? Not my fault!”. In theory, serious. In practice, no big deal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 20 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: I told the party line I mean, if you’re Republican, you don’t want anything to happen to Republicans because of power so in someway, we try to justify someone found guilty of a federal crime pardoning themselves It’s weird, because not that long ago PUTIN was one buzzword for some people and RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS was another. Partnering with CHINA was a problem, and MSB was evil and needed to be DEALT WITH. Now, people who were outraged aren’t so outraged about the close ties our current president and his immediate family has with RUSSIA, OLIGARCHS, CHINA and MSB. People justify, consider cleaning up your own house before worrying about mine. Edited January 4 by leh-nerd skin-erd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 19 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: It’s weird, because not that long ago PUTIN was one buzzword for some people and RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS was another. Partnering with CHINA was a problem, and MSB was evil and needed to be DEALT WITH. Now, people who were outraged aren’t so outraged about the close ties our current president and his immediate family has with RUSSIA, OLIGARCHS, CHINA and MSB. People justify, consider cleaning up your own house before worrying about mine. You really try so hard. Do you believe in Santa, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 32 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: It’s weird, because not that long ago PUTIN was one buzzword for some people and RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS was another. Partnering with CHINA was a problem, and MSB was evil and needed to be DEALT WITH. Now, people who were outraged aren’t so outraged about the close ties our current president and his immediate family has with RUSSIA, OLIGARCHS, CHINA and MSB. People justify, consider cleaning up your own house before worrying about mine. Dude 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, John from Riverside said: The difference is you don’t see Democrats storming the capital No, they just destroyed cities for months on end, leading to far worse consequences for the country than the afternoon of stupidity. 45 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Yeah, I would have thought so too, until, you know. “Provably intentional” has been revealed as the most recent legal weaslese to convince people that some folks possessing, maintaining and treating classified material with reckless abandon is really not a big deal when certain people are involved. Here’s the way it really plays out: taking, possessing, holding, hiding, slinging, flipping and bouncing top secret and classified information that could jeopardize sources and methods, and get some people killed, is a glorified speed bump for the right type of people. There is the law, the lofty goal, the trust placed in those responsible for our greatest secrets, and then there’s the guy who possessed all sorts of material from all sorts of stops and stashed them near the recyclable can in his lake house. His defense…”Geesh, how would I know? Not my fault!”. In theory, serious. In practice, no big deal. This. To pay homage to Chi, a "will someone not rid me..." tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Yeah, I would have thought so too, until, you know. “Provably intentional” has been revealed as the most recent legal weaslese to convince people that some folks possessing, maintaining and treating classified material with reckless abandon is really not a big deal when certain people are involved. Here’s the way it really plays out: taking, possessing, holding, hiding, slinging, flipping and bouncing top secret and classified information that could jeopardize sources and methods, and get some people killed, is a glorified speed bump for the right type of people. There is the law, the lofty goal, the trust placed in those responsible for our greatest secrets, and then there’s the guy who possessed all sorts of material from all sorts of stops and stashed them near the recyclable can in his lake house. His defense…”Geesh, how would I know? Not my fault!”. In theory, serious. In practice, no big deal. Nah, it's been pretty straightforward the entire time. Simple possession is insufficient to prove intent, but contextual facts can prove intent and secure a guilty verdict. To keep the politics out of it, imagine some high up military officer like a four star general is retiring to private life. This individual has access to a lot of classified information, some of which may be in their office at any given time. When they are getting ready to leave, it isn't the officer themself who is packing up every item in their office, it's other staffers. We would hope that these people would have good controls over what things are personal and can go home with the officer and what belongs to the government and is not allowed to leave, but that process is clearly broken and in need of serious reform. So maybe some things go to the officer's home that shouldn't have. If and when the officer discovers this, they are obligated to immediately notify the government. Maybe it is right after they move in as they unpack everything, maybe it is some time down the line because they just stacked some stuff in a room or corner and didn't get around to going through it right away. In any case, their initial possession is insufficient to prove a crime (because doing so requires intent) but they need to turn it over the moment they are aware. Even if you assume bad intentions, there is still a way out for the officer. Maybe they mixed government documents into their personal effects so they would be packed and sent to their home so the officer could use them for their personal gain. Even in that scenario, the officer can avoid prosecution by claiming they didn't know this happened and notified the government the moment they learned of the "mistake." If the government is unable to provide evidence that points towards intent (i.e. the officer admitted to others that they knew they had it, or they were meeting with individuals and providing them the government docs / information), then they won’t be able to press charges. Literally, the only way that the officer could be prosecuted would be if the government could prove that they knew that they possessed government property and refused to turn it over. While simple possession is insufficient to prove this in a court of law, efforts to conceal or deceive can provide evidence of intent. And if the officer is dumb enough to tell the government "yes, I have this stuff but I am not turning it over," they are basically admitting to a crime. Edited January 4 by ChiGoose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 18 minutes ago, Doc said: No, they just destroyed cities for months on end, leading to far worse consequences for the country than the afternoon of stupidity. This. To pay homage to Chi, a "will someone not rid me..." tactic. The last time I checked, those cities were still there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts