Jump to content
UNLV2001

The Orange Clown's Mar-a-lago VISITED by FBI !!!!!!!

Recommended Posts

On 8/14/2022 at 9:29 AM, FresnoFacts said:

What is ""executive" privileged material"? Is that some weird way of saying all of the TS/SCI material?

It sounds like Trump never outgrew the 2 year old "mine" stage.

 

This "TRUTH"?

It may not be an exact analogue but when I attended a class at the state training center on the subject many years ago, I was told that although it was not a violation of the California Public Records Act to take unclassified official documents home to supplement time spent in the office analyzing them, it was a violation to comingle them with one's own records. 

I remember thinking at the time that that was simple logic. But then, I'm a fairly rational person.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 11:35 AM, FresnoFacts said:

Ron Johnson leaves me speechless. Not concerned about Top Secret info being leaked?

 

The fact that millions of Republicans continue to buy the nonsense spouted by guys like Johnson has ceased to anger me. Rather, the gullibility of such people now makes me depressed.

 

 

This great country of ours is in deep, deep trouble folks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 11:49 AM, FresnoFacts said:

Fox hosts are now trying to use Nixon to justify Trump's actions? Holy Time Machine Batman!

From the Frost/Nixon interviews:

David Frost: So, what in a sense you’re saying is that there are certain situations and the Huston plan or that part of it was one of them where the president can decide that it’s in the best interest of the nation or something and do something illegal.

Richard Nixon: Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal.

 

Bill Bennett is such a great "source" for information. From Wiki:

Controversies[edit]

Gambling[edit]

In 2003, it became publicly known that Bennett - who had spent years preaching about family values and personal responsibility - was a high-stakes gambler who lost millions of dollars in Las Vegas.[21] Criticism increased in the wake of Bennett's publication, The Book of Virtues, a compilation of moral stories about courage, responsibility, friendship and other examples of virtue. Joshua Green of the Washington Monthly said that Bennett failed to denounce gambling because of his own tendency to gamble. Also, Bennett and Empower America, the organization he co-founded and headed at the time, opposed an extension of casino gambling in the United States.[22]

Bennett said that his habit had not put himself or his family in any financial jeopardy. After Bennett's gambling problem became public, he said he did not believe his habit set a good example, that he had "done too much gambling" over the years, and his "gambling days are over". "We are financially solvent," his wife Elayne told USA Today. "All our bills are paid." She added that his gambling days are over. "He's never going again," she said.[23]

Several months later, Bennett qualified his position, saying "So, in this case, the excessive gambling is over." He explained "Since there will be people doing the micrometer on me, I just want to be clear: I do want to be able to bet the Buffalo Bills in the Super Bowl."[24]

Radio show abortion comment[edit]

On September 28, 2005, in a discussion on Bennett's Morning in America radio show, a caller to the show proposed that "lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" could preserve Social Security if abortion had not been permitted since Roe v. Wade. Bennett responded that aborting by all African-American babies, "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could—if that were the sole purpose—you could abort every black baby in this country and the crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."[25][26]

Bennett responded to the criticism saying, in part:

A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment.[27]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 1:57 PM, retrofade said:

No, just admit that you don't like the reporting when it goes against what you want to believe. 

You're a diehard Trumper, you have been since day one, and you will be until the day he finally dies.

You prefer mainstream news because you like it...you refuse to even consider that it is too often wrong.

You are a diehard hater and will be until the day you die.

  • Facepalm 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 1:30 PM, RebelAlliance said:

About time that the man with the fake Ph.D weighs in.

And if that guy with a fake Ph.D says an unnamed "source" told him that based on the amount of equipment taken to Mar-a-Lago and the time spent there, he believes the FBI planted documents there, we Americans should all believe that occurred.

Personally, I was initially a little skeptical but after having heard "That's in America, Steve!," I'm now 100% convinced that the FBI planted classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

 

P.S. - My wife disagrees with me. Her position is that what Gorka relies on is pure speculation and we don't even know the "source" was an FBI agent rather than a night custodian. Tell ya what. My wife is such a skeptic about these clearly credible Republicans that I'm starting to wonder whether she might be a commie or a fascist. Or maybe worse than that, a Democrat.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 2:20 PM, grandjean87 said:

No reporting here.  You can read the warrant and the two receipts (p5 and p6/7) here. Attachment B on p4 has the three U.S. Code violations in question. Of course, it’s just a warrant, but doesn’t look very cheery to me:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22131379-220805-trump-warrant

I read this the day it was out.   No it doesn't look good...any DA can write this up to look bad and they do it every day.    I believe that this is a small part of the paperwork that we will never see .   

I am simply waiting...the search was a political act.   If this administration held up all the laws they pledged to, I may be further along on this...but when folks claim this was done because we are a nation of laws, it's a joke. We will see.

  • Haha 3
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 5:26 PM, Jackrabbit said:

You prefer mainstream news because you like it...you refuse to even consider that it is too often wrong.

You are a diehard hater and will be until the day you die.

I read news from every angle... I even debase myself by reading Faux, Brietbart, and OAN. Fvck off with your idiocy, little man. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 5:38 PM, Jackrabbit said:

I read this the day it was out.   No it doesn't look good...any DA can write this up to look bad and they do it every day.    I believe that this is a small part of the paperwork that we will never see .   

I am simply waiting...the search was a political act.   If this administration held up all the laws they pledged to, I may be further along on this...but when folks claim this was done because we are a nation of laws, it's a joke. We will see.

Oh now the "DA" is out to get Trump. You'll ascribe everything you can to bias in order to fit your own beliefs. You're among the most pathetic believers among the already pathetic. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 2:38 PM, Jackrabbit said:

I am simply waiting...the search was a political act.   If this administration held up all the laws they pledged to, I may be further along on this...but when folks claim this was done because we are a nation of laws, it's a joke. We will see.

 

So law enforcement is now political?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 3:38 PM, Jackrabbit said:

I read this the day it was out.   No it doesn't look good...any DA can write this up to look bad and they do it every day.    I believe that this is a small part of the paperwork that we will never see .   

I am simply waiting...the search was a political act.   If this administration held up all the laws they pledged to, I may be further along on this...but when folks claim this was done because we are a nation of laws, it's a joke. We will see.

I'm waiting, too.  I can read serious analysis and draw my own conclusions and even speculate a little, but I'm still waiting and watching.  I've posted that a few times before.  I need more than we know now.  That's true even though my distaste for Donald Trump began in 1988 some three and one-half decades back. 

Here's the thing, Jack.  I edited in bold two concurrent phrases of yours.  They don't match up unless by "I am simply waiting" means you are waiting for it to be proven this was one of those ubiquitous witch hunts.  If you mean you are really waiting (objectively) for time, more information, and how this all plays out then you can't make the statement "the search was a political act" because in this context it implies it was an overt political act w/o any basis in fact.  It does appear there are facts, but why don't we just wait before pronouncing a definitive statement (albeit a short one).  It's okay to have a bias, but you can still be open to what comes down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 2:23 PM, Jackrabbit said:

Sorry man....I reject arguments and discussion based on so called journalists who start there stories with "sources close to, or anonymous reports," don't corroborate anything and rush it to print.  One giant echo chamber.

90 % of reporting is crap and I dont know the answer.

article-0-1A2B262D00000578-818_636x382.j

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 3:41 PM, retrofade said:

I read news from every angle... I even debase myself by reading Faux, Brietbart, and OAN. Fvck off with your idiocy, little man. 

The Fox news, their website articles are actually pretty good.  They skew right, but are not bad.  Comparable to many other websites that skew left.  Why on earth you would waste time reading the other two though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 4:26 PM, Jackrabbit said:

You prefer mainstream news because you like it...you refuse to even consider that it is too often wrong.

You are a diehard hater and will be until the day you die.

Irony-Meter-Explode.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 3:23 PM, Jackrabbit said:

Sorry man....I reject arguments and discussion based on so called journalists who start there stories with "sources close to, or anonymous reports," don't corroborate anything and rush it to print.  One giant echo chamber.

90 % of reporting is crap and I dont know the answer.

SO DID YOU NOT BELIEVE IN WATERGATE UNTIL 2005!?!?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 6:05 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The Fox news, their website articles are actually pretty good.  They skew right, but are not bad.  Comparable to many other websites that skew left.  Why on earth you would waste time reading the other two though...

I read the other two simply to see the extreme talking points of any given issue. I do also look at Newsmax, which is just as painful as OAN, so I just kinda cycle them back and forth. 

I do agree that the Faux news division is decent enough, just like the WSJ news division is good. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 4:10 PM, happycamper said:

SO DID YOU NOT BELIEVE IN WATERGATE UNTIL 2005!?!?

Journalism was a bit more reputable at that time...and this is not on the scale of the Watergate coverup... it's a disagreement between a former pres and the DOJ, go figure.

  • Haha 2
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2022 at 3:38 PM, Jackrabbit said:

I read this the day it was out.   No it doesn't look good...any DA can write this up to look bad and they do it every day.    I believe that this is a small part of the paperwork that we will never see .   

I am simply waiting...the search was a political act.   If this administration held up all the laws they pledged to, I may be further along on this...but when folks claim this was done because we are a nation of laws, it's a joke. We will see.

Jack, let me ask; how do you feel about someone that mocks the disabled? A simple, non political question.

I ask this because when I saw Trump doing so, on national television (I can post a video if you want), I knew that this was NOT the kind of person I want to run the country. And that was early on in his campaign. The rest of the stuff, including his own statements and actions, merely cemented it for me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...