Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

As feel as though you are in possession of the facts, but cannot (or will not) accept them as reality.

National Security was probably not compromised by whatever Trump had in his home.

The FBI raid is unquestionably just something to provide ammo for the Democrats to try and get a criminal conviction on Trump, with eyes towards 2024.

Nobody here is denying any of that. But you seem to be arguing as though we are.

It doesn't matter that every president since Reagan has probably violated the Presidential Records Act. The only thing which matters, at present, is that the democrats want to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024, and it appears that this is the strategy which they are using to try to achieve that.


Concepts like fairness, reasonableness, how you think it "ought to work..." none of that matters.


Are we all in agreement here?

Bajingo

If you throw in that the FBI is almost definitely out of line and probably committing unconstitutional/illegal acts, sure

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Then why TF muddy the waters with talk of whether a president can declassify documents or not?! Is this some sort of weed-induced rearranging of the Titanic's deck chairs?

Bajingo

It matters because if trump could declassify at will then everything about what the fbi did is illegal

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

And from what I've seen, ALL presidents can declassify at will. Trump apparently had a standing order about this. They declassify in order to move them, they declassify in order for specialists to see them....jeez, almost every oval office meeting must have a number of "classified" documents in use.


One wonders what classified secrets have been shared outside the White House walls...

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I kinda.... think that maybe you're getting it?

Facts don't matter here,

At least, not the ones about "but previous ex-presidents also did this," and "there was no actual harm to national security."

I want to make sure that we're all clear on that.

The only thing which matters right now, August 14 2022, is that the democrats have managed to nail down one specific little set of victimless crimes committed by former-President Trump, and they appear to be successfully angling those into a position which may result in a criminal conviction.

If you are trying to make the conversation about anything larger than that, you are falling into the trap which the democrats are laying.

Bajingo

I super highly doubt they'll get a conviction, I think they're going for something a little different I'm not exactly sure what but I didn't think that's it.

​​​​​

xturner

I’ve always thought that I’m too negative about a lot of life, but jeez -

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

For quite a while they've tried to make Trump unelectable. Remember Trump's "all of the above" energy policy? The Libs have that motto for getting Trump. At least one secret Grand Jury is meeting about Trump right now, and since we have an FBI that will lie to get their way, he'll 100% be indicted. Whether it goes beyond that is anyone's guess, but there are some possible outcomes to all this that I never thought would be possible in America. Well right now they're possible.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

Doctor's from the Great Barrington Declaration join law suit against Big Tech, CDC, DHS etceteras for stifling information about Covid.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

That's what Trump claims.

It's interesting to look at how his reactions to the raid itself have evolved over the past few days.

First, he claimed that the documents were taken by accident, as he really was expecting to still be in the White House after January 2021, and moving out was therefore rushed. Not totally impossible, but fishy-smelling. (And also still makes him guilty since he did nothing after discovering them.) I may be wrong on this one- I'm not 100% sure whether this claim was originated by Trump himself or by one of his lawyers.

Then he claimed that the documents were planted by the FBI, a story which the party faithful quickly ran with. But then we see that the surveillance cameras, which the lawyers had turned back on almost immediately, show Trump, his family, and the SS, watching the FBI agents the whole time. So, probably not planted.

Then he pivoted over to "Oh, I'm allowed to have those." Which is the story which the right-side mouthpieces are now repeating, and the only one thus far which, if true, is actually exonerating. As we've seen over the past page or so of this thread, that's a topic on which there appears to be considerable misunderstanding. At least some of the people who are fairly confident that they know whether this is or is not the case are wrong. Or lying, as the Trump-apologists like to claim so very much.

We had the "Other Presidents have done this too," phase. And that one is probably the only truthful thing which Trump has said so far about this. But the "Your honor, someone else also committed this crime, and they didn't get busted for it" defense has been proven not to work very well.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Methinks you get your news from a different place than me.

Thought experiment--Find out how many classified documents BHO has in his possession, and if archives even knows what they are.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I think that's probably a safe assumption.

Is something which I stated above factually contradicted by whichever source of news you are privy to?



Ok, I will do the thought experiment.

Barack Obama has 37 Top-Secret documents in his position. I can prove this, and also that is is aware that he possesses these, and that this is illegal.

Donald Trump's predicament is unchanged.

leboeuf

iTrader: (1)

I'm still waiting for someone to bring out the wookie defense.

Serious question though: Where does everyone get their news from?
I'll go first... Maybe this should be embarrassing? I'm not really sure. Sometime in college I realized that almost all news seen on TV was a BSified version of an AP or Reuters story.
So I've usually just gone there?
1. Associated Press
2. Reuters
3. mt.net obviously
EDIT!!! ^2
4. NPR depending on granola intake. Like the weird end of NPR, not the mainstream part. The stories are delightfully random. Don't try and deny it.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

There are certain statements you made that become moot if what Trump has alleged is anywhere close to true. For example, if we can agree that the FBI was at Mar-a-Lago two months ago and saw these boxes voluntarily, then it seems that a raid wouldn't be needed. If we can agree that Trump was playing golf that day and wasn't concerned that the FBI was there, then we need to assume that nothing in the boxes was of concern to him.

If that's the case, you'd still need to make the huge assumption that Garland and this magistrate judge don't have a political bone in their body.

No one believes that. Just as no one believes that this is the last thing that the current administration will throw at Trump. So when you look at this issue--not from the legal perspective but from the political--you see it for what it is.

You could probably do the same with the bathroom server, Fast n' Furious and Eric Holder, Comey making a judicial decision about HRC, etceteras. We got political outcomes, not legal.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Regardless of what happened two months ago, it was needed in order for the Democrats to pursue their current strategy against Trump.



Not so, given our present understanding that (if he is telling the truth), Trump believed that he had the right to possess whatever he possessed.

While I acknowledge that you and others still consider this to be true, I posit that the events of the next few weeks and months may bear some influence on that belief.



This is 100% political. No one here is questioning that.

I, personally, have outright stated this many times.

You appear to be mistaking the fact that I am acknowledging the probability of criminal behavior on the part of the former President with my defending the prosecution of said criminal behavior as legitimate and not politically motivated.

Both things are probably true. It does appear that Trump has committed a number of felonies, AND the fact that the DOJ is just now choosing to investigate this is no doubt a politically-motivated action.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

If you believe this is 100% political, then PLEASE don't throw out potential legal arguments. If we all know it's ridiculous, you're just muddying the waters. AGAIN. Quit playing with the deck chairs.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I still, and I am being serious, do not understand why you're saying this.

The fact that this is all politically motivated does not change the fact that it will likely still result in a trial, and that the laws will play a significant role in determining the outcome of that trial.

And the outcome of that trial, if it does occur, will likely have real-world consequences which affect the whole nation.


edit:

Interesting hypothetical: If a former president is convicted of a felony, and sentenced to prison, how does that affect the role of the Secret Service which is assigned to protect him?

xturner

The guy who draws the short straw becomes the “Designated Bottom?”

Bajingo

Better hypothetical, can you be elected president while in federal prison, and can you then pardon yourself?