On 08-12-22 13:45, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
What do you know about the judge's connections, other than that he was appointed by Trump?
He was appointed while Trump was president, but not by President
Trump. Federal magistrate judges aren't appointed by the president.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-trump-appoint-judge- who-approved-fbi-ma
-lago-raid-1732495
With that system you get judges who know the law and apply it fairly.
If judges are subject to popular vote, they have to spend much time campaigning instead of judging -- plus they get voted on by people who have little understanding of the law.
It would not be the first time that a
President's relatives were a "skeleton in the closet".
It did also note that some documents were on the list that were not classified and/or may be covered by lawyer/client priveledge. If that is the case, they should know better. The search warrant only covered classified documents and not personal, unclassified ones.
It did also note that some documents were on the list that were notthat is
classified and/or may be covered by lawyer/client priveledge. If
the case, they should know better. The search warrant only covered
classified documents and not personal, unclassified ones.
Why do you guys keep on perpetuating the lies from the ultra-right Trumpsters?
Read my lips: There is nothing in the three laws upon which the search warrent was based, that limits them to classified documents!
Every single document, classified or not, illegally taken from NARA protected facilities is a violation of law, AKA illegal. Very much so, in one case it results in up to ten years of prison PER DOCUMENT!
I suggest you fact check things before you just parrot the fascists' attempts to make excuses for the dumbest former POTUS ever.
You're right. And you know what? President Joe Biden should grantIn exchange for not running in 2024. But, it might be even bad where Desantis may spank Biden AND Newsolini.
Donald J. Trump an unconditional and full presidential pardon, for
all crimes committed. And then walk away, allowing Donald J. Trump
You're right. And you know what? President Joe Biden should grant
Donald J. Trump an unconditional and full presidential pardon, for
all crimes committed. And then walk away, allowing Donald J. Trump
In exchange for not running in 2024.
But, it might be even bad where Desantis may spank Biden AND Newsolini.
And while you are at it, tell me about all the
charges against Hunter Biden. Oh, that's right. Can't find any having
been filed against him, either. No surprise there. But keep trying.
And while you are at it, tell me about all the
charges against Hunter Biden. Oh, that's right. Can't find any having
been filed against him, either. No surprise there. But keep trying.
LOL! This hoax is so stupid, I can't understand how any person capable of setting up a Fidonet access account are not able to see through it.
A. A filthy rich person like Hunter B. has a water damaged MacBook Pro.
B. He does not know, that trying to repair any Apple product usually costs more than buying a new one because he cant afford it?).
C. He decides to leave it, with lots of sensitive information on it(?),
to a non-Apple approved workshop, far away from his home, for "repair".
D. Despite several (allegedly) reminders from the workshop owner, he never tries to pick it up.
E. This workshop owner, identified as John Paul Mac Isaac, keeps the laptop for three years, and in the meantime he, as well as any other Russian friend from the MAGA cult, has total access to it.
F. "Holy Cow! Look what we found in it. Better alert the FBI." Ahem, well, let's alert Giuliani first, and let that totally unbiased person decide what to do with all this sensitive information.
How stupid can you be for believing all of the above?
The FBI sure as hell was not, they laughed it off.
But people as stupid as Trump and all of those below his stupidity, still to
this day keep harping this folly.
No wonder the Cult 45 went ballistic when Biden tried to restore the educational system in the USA. "We can't have affordable education here, the uneducated are our voter base!"
What was border security like in the 1880s when your family arrived in the US? Were the borders more, or less, open than they are now? How did that affect our national sovereignty? What was the driving force behind the change in border policy? Answer those questions correctly and I think you'll have a much more accurate understanding of "America First."
Illegal immigration is a problem and does neet to be dealt with, but the solution to that problem should not be taken out on legal refugees.
What was border security like in the 1880s when your family arrived in t US? Were the borders more, or less, open than they are now? How did that affect our national sovereignty? What was the driving force behind the c in border policy? Answer those questions correctly and I think you'll ha much more accurate understanding of "America First."Considering that most immigrants were coming across the Atlantic by boat... the boats would arrive and the immigrants would be processed through processing stations like Ellis Island, where the ship master
would present paperwork that was supposed to account for each
immigrating person aboard his ship. They were not all automatically accepted or "set loose" in NYC. Some where quaranteened for observation, others were turned away outright. Having a job already lined up, or relatives already in the country, was a plus.
If someone crosses the southern border now, at a legal crossing point, they go through at least some of the same treatment.
But not all of
them cross at legal crossings, and not all of those that don't get
caught.
Apparently many of the legal ones do not have sponsors or jobs
lined up.
Otherwise, the government would have turned them over to said
sponsors before the local governors got a chance to ask them if they
want to travel to NYC, Chicago, DC, or another proclaimed "sanctuary
city" and put them on a bus.
Illegal immigration is a problem and does neet to be dealt with, but the solution to that problem should not be taken out on legal refugees.Similarly, illegal immigrants should not be lumped in with legal refugees as "refugees." You make a distiction here. Others often do not.
But not all of
them cross at legal crossings, and not all of those that don't get caught.
True. But the refugees who cross seeking asylum generally turn themselves in at the first opportunity. Their situation makes them seek out the authorities rather than avoid them. They are doing things the legal way.
A big part of the anti-refugee propaganda is making them out to be illegal immigrants, which they are not.
Apparently many of the legal ones do not have sponsors or jobs
lined up.
There are organizations that will sponsor them.
Otherwise, the government would have turned them over to said
sponsors before the local governors got a chance to ask them if they want to travel to NYC, Chicago, DC, or another proclaimed "sanctuary city" and put them on a bus.
Organizations that will sponsor them are usually located in larger cities.
I like how you threw "sanctuary city" in there. "Sanctuary cities" are distinguished by their treatment of illegal immigrants, not refugees. You've been brainwashed into thinking that refugees are illegal immigrants, when they are not.
The Border Patrol also makes that distinction, and regularly deports illegal immigrants.
For me it is the ease of being able to yell "asylum!" and suddenly be considered legal or potentially legal. If they really wanted asylum,But not all ofTrue. But the refugees who cross seeking asylum generally turn themselve at the first opportunity. Their situation makes them seek out the author rather than avoid them. They are doing things the legal way.
them cross at legal crossings, and not all of those that don't get caught.
A big part of the anti-refugee propaganda is making them out to be illeg immigrants, which they are not.
they should have crossed at a legal checkpoint. If they are not, they
are hoping not to encounter someone, although I am certain they know to act as if they were looking for that encounter all along should it
happen.
Maybe you are that naive.
In past, you told us they had to have sponsors lined up already. WhichApparently many of the legal ones do not have sponsors or jobs lined up.There are organizations that will sponsor them.
is it?
But there are no illegal immigrants that don't get turned away, right?Otherwise, the government would have turned them over to said sponsors before the local governors got a chance to ask them if the want to travel to NYC, Chicago, DC, or another proclaimed "sanctuar city" and put them on a bus.Organizations that will sponsor them are usually located in larger citie I like how you threw "sanctuary city" in there. "Sanctuary cities" are distinguished by their treatment of illegal immigrants, not refugees. Yo been brainwashed into thinking that refugees are illegal immigrants, whe they are not.
The Border Patrol also makes that distinction, and regularly deports ill immigrants.
For me it is the ease of being able to yell "asylum!" and suddenly be considered legal or potentially legal. If they really wanted asylum, they should have crossed at a legal checkpoint. If they are not, they are hoping not to encounter someone, although I am certain they know to act as if they were looking for that encounter all along should it happen.But not all ofTrue. But the refugees who cross seeking asylum generally turn themselv
them cross at legal crossings, and not all of those that don't get
caught.
at the first opportunity. Their situation makes them seek out the autho
rather than avoid them. They are doing things the legal way.
A big part of the anti-refugee propaganda is making them out to be ille
immigrants, which they are not.
Refugees seeking asylum go through a vetting process. Not all are allowed through.
Maybe you are that naive.
Or maybe you are.
In past, you told us they had to have sponsors lined up already. Which is it?Apparently many of the legal ones do not have sponsors or jobs lined up.There are organizations that will sponsor them.
It is a combination of both.
If they don't cross at a legal checkpoint to make sure they encounter authorities to surrender to, they are not refugees. They only claim to
be as part of pretending to turn themselves in when getting caught.
That is not naive.
Not how you used to tell it when arguing with Aaron or Gregory. Thanks for clarifying that.In past, you told us they had to have sponsors lined up already. W is it?Apparently many of the legal ones do not have sponsors or jo lined up.There are organizations that will sponsor them.
point,If someone crosses the southern border now, at a legal crossing
My main problem with George Soros is that he's funding campaigns for district attorneys who refuse to prosecute. That bothers me. I also don't like how he's
invested in 18 hispanic radio stations in an attempt to subjugate some of the 1.8 million+ illegal immigrants who have entered the country since Joe took office.
What brings you together, then?
For the American people we want peace, safety, equality, and sovereignty. But I can only assume that other conservatives would agree with that statement.
When you say "Preserve the traditional power structure," that sounds good to me. What is meant by that? Why does it seem racist to you? To me it sounds like "we're gonna remain a Democratic nation with a free market." But to you it means something different. What does it mean to you?
What business is Soros in? Maybe he is in radio and wants more stations?
It seems odd that he would only target hispanic stations, though.
It has been reported that the one DA that got recalled in SF was a recepient of his money, and apparently said DA was even underperforming below typical left-leaning standards.
What business is Soros in? Maybe he is in radio and wants more stations?
When you say "Preserve the traditional power structure," that sounds goo me. What is meant by that? Why does it seem racist to you? To me it soun like "we're gonna remain a Democratic nation with a free market." But to it means something different. What does it mean to you?
That is also how I would take it, but I am not hoping to change said structure into something more socialist. If I were, I am sure I would find bad-sounding reasons for why it needs to be changed.
What business is Soros in? Maybe he is in radio and wants more stationsThat's a good question. I can't say for sure, but I think it's the "ruling of the world" industry.
It seems odd that he would only target hispanic stations, though.Are you sure that "odd" is the word for it? I call it highly suspicious timi
It has been reported that the one DA that got recalled in SF was a recepient of his money, and apparently said DA was even underperforming below typical left-leaning standards.It's also highly suspicious why we've got an unprecedented number of DAs behaving like this.
What business is Soros in? Maybe he is in radio and wants more stationsRadio stations are propagation tools. (Add that to the suspicious list!)
When you say "Preserve the traditional power structure," that sounds go
me. What is meant by that? Why does it seem racist to you? To me it sou
like "we're gonna remain a Democratic nation with a free market." But t
it means something different. What does it mean to you?
That is also how I would take it, but I am not hoping to change said structure into something more socialist. If I were, I am sure I would find bad-sounding reasons for why it needs to be changed.
There comes a time when a person will actually "believe" their own lie because
they want it to be the truth so badly. They wish it, they want it, and they think it. Don't be surprised if you see Jeff at a 1-man protest against "the traditional power structure."
So... we're down to the "Republicans are stupid" argument?
The leftists are propagating the notion that the election is in the bag.
Mike Powell wrote to AARON THOMAS <=-
The leftists are propagating the notion that the election is in the bag.
Are they? I don't see any evidence of that.
I think most of them want
to be sure that their fellow left-leaners get out and vote.
Interesting that he "doesn't have that much power" to influence things, per readers here but, in 1993, The Atlantic (which is not known for
being a conservative publication) thought otherwise. If true, it
improves his stock some in my eyes since I think so little of communism, although it also proves that he can influence to the point of causing governments to fall.
James Kirchick, a Jewish American conservative reporter, has alleged that some progressives view all criticism of Soros as antisemitic and that
such claims are often made "entirely in bad faith," when, for example,
His funds, in past, have invested in political campaigns, causes, and objectives, but they have also invested in such benign things as a hotel chain in Argentina.
In 2004, Soros became involved in investing in US politics. He donated over $23 million to tax exempt groups that were aiming to defeat the re-election campaign of George W. Bush. After that unsuccessful
During 2020, Soros gave at least $500,000 to the Biden campaign, becoming one of their largest donors (New York Times, July, 2020).
They can indeed be used for propaganda. There used to be an old saying that, when one country invades another, one of the first things they look to take control over is the broadcast airwaves.
The leftists are propagating the notion that the election is in the bag.
Are they? I don't see any evidence of that. I think most of them want
to be sure that their fellow left-leaners get out and vote.
The leftists are propagating the notion that the election is in the bagOh, it's out there. But it's the usual propaganda that we see every election season and now that we know that the Media is really the Propaganda Ministry, we've just gotten into the habit of ignoring it.
Are they? I don't see any evidence of that.
But it does seem a little lighter than previous years.
I think most of them wantAnd I think this is the reason. They don't want their minions to stay home thinking "it's in the bag" and losing by an even bigger margin.
to be sure that their fellow left-leaners get out and vote.
But another reason is that non-elitists are simply not answering polls. So the numbers that they are getting are very skewed - more than normal.
I don't believe that anyone who voted Biden in 2016 won't do so again in 2024. He's done nothing to lose their trust, because they trust snakes and snake oil salesmen.
Also, there's more than polling than just asking a bunch of people some questions ad adding up the answers. For one thing, they're corrected for ideological bias.How do they do that? How would you know that the "correction" is not actually the result of the bias of the poll taker/corrector?
Also, there's more than polling than just asking a bunch of people some questions ad adding up the answers. For one thing, they're corrected for ideological bias.
You right. Everybody will be voting for Kamala.
On 09-23-22 12:31, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Jeff Thiele about Re: fbi <=-
That's all that matters to the leftists; "anything but Trump."
Although I can ask any leftist "Why anybody but Trump?" and the best answer they can give is "because he was impeached!" or "because he said dead soldiers are losers!" or "because he beats his wife!"
On 23 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...
Also, there's more than polling than just asking a bunch of people someHow do they do that? How would you know that the "correction" is not actually the result of the bias of the poll taker/corrector?
questions ad adding up the answers. For one thing, they're corrected fo
ideological bias.
They weight the answers. In the most simple cases, they ask those polled to self-identify as Democrat, Republican, or independent. Then they weight each group's answers to what is known about the actual Democrat/Republican/independent makeup of the US. If Republicans are under-represented, then the answers from Republicans are given added weight to correct for the bias.
We learned all about that in US History classes. I don't think you have a firm grasp on how things become law in the United States, or how court rulings work.Yes, I understand.
It does not matter how long ago the original ruling was decided, it is never, ever on solid ground until it is passed into LAW by Congress, and then until it passes the test of being Constitutional (something that would happen in the courts).Laws were not written because they were not needed.
The Democrats knew this could happen... they bring up how abortion could be overturned if they are not elected during EVERY election cycle. They never do anything when they can because then they could not keep using that threat to abortion rights during their campaigns.I suppose it wouldn't hurt to codify these laws if some believe women don't ha
privacy/abortion/human/health care rights.
Nope, I was not talking about the errosion of democracy or freedom. That was a
pin you put into my words.
I think the right in the US is a danger to democracy to be clear, but that is t what I am talking about here.
No, it actually isn't. I looked it up. The problem comes from how the billNo, that is not what the pro-choice side wants or is doing.
was originally written. It was written to remove all penalties for the outcome of a pregnacy, i.e. one that was terminated or where a baby is
stillborn. However, as originally written, the language also removed all civ
and criminal penalty and liability for "perinatal" death. "Perinatal" is defined as the period around childbirth -- 5 months before and 1 month after
That last bit is the important part. They meant to absolve anyone whose child dies of natural causes within the preinatal period. Because the language was vague, and did not specifically state what they meant by "perinatal" period, it left the door open for a court to interpret the law as including children that died from other non-natural causes during the first month after birth.Pregnacy and the natural death of a fetus are natural things. There is no need
o write laws about it.
Once the "California wants to make post-birth abortion legal" news started spreading, the legal team for the legislator who introduced the bill introduced amendments to close those potential loopholes/legal misinterpretations.I don't think Californians, democrats or anyone else wants "post-birth abortio
to be legal.
I don't actually know where that comes from or what it actually means.
Not at all, but being court precedent does not mean that the court cannot overturn it later. Making it LAW would have solved that issue, so long as the LAW was written in a manner that would allow it to stand up to the test of being Constitutional.I guess so, since that is what has now happened.
What I am saying is that if Roe v Wade is settled law (precedent) as many have
aid then there isn't really a reason for law makers to codify any law.
Could be, but it will have to stand the test of being Constitutional. If the Democrats had not wasted several opportunites to make it LAW, the Republican task of creating a ban would be much more difficult.The democrats have not wasted anything. What is happening now is a waste.
prisonload of hispanic Honduran releasees.
What is your evidence for this breakdown?
That's the latest I got from Fox News.
Laws were not written because they were not needed.
But they were needed. Otherwise, it would still be legal.
Nope, I was not talking about the errosion of democracy or freedom. That was >> a spin you put into my words.
I think the right in the US is a danger to democracy to be clear, but that is >> t what I am talking about here.
From earlier in THIS VERY THREAD:
AI is you. That little arrow means you said it to AT (Aaron). That text
was still in the first message I responded to. So, tell me again that you are/were not discussing the errosion of democracy.
No, that is not what the pro-choice side wants or is doing.
But the law was written that way originally, until others pointed it out.
I don't really think they MEANT to write it that way, but
they obviously didn't read it too well or didn't understand the language
they used in their own bill.
They are not only covering natural death. See the word "terminated" in the previous paragraph.
What I am saying is that if Roe v Wade is settled law (precedent) as many
have said then there isn't really a reason for law makers to codify any law.
To stop it from being overturned. You seemed to understand that in your statement previous to this one but I guess not.
They most certainly did. I don't want it to be made illegal nationwide, either but if it happens the Democrats played a part in it by not doing
their stated jobs ("elect us and we will do something to protect it!").
You right. Everybody will be voting for Kamala.
There's no reason for Biden not to run. He's been good to the leftists.
The only thing that might stop him is if he accidentally destroys too much USA before the 2024 election;
if there's no USA left to destroy in 2024, he would actually have no reason
to run for re-election because his mission will have already been accomplished early.
How about:
His attempts to stay in power by:
fomenting an armed sedition,
efforts to send false electors to Congress, and
pressuring states to modify their vote count.
I think you mean Venezuelan. There is some evidence that the Venezuelan government may have taken a page out of the Fidel Castro playbook and allowed convicts to begin the treck north to the US.
from the areas considered as part of the Triangle, like Honduras, but instead are coming from countries with failed/failing leftist
governments like Venezuela and Cuba.
It was not really all that long ago that Venezuela was often listed as an example of a utopian society by American elites. It was long enough ago
Unlike his predecessor, Biden will not make a deal with Putin.
Or with that other tinhorn dictator known as "Rocket Man". So rest assured, we are in good hands with All_Biden.
Or with that other tinhorn dictator known as "Rocket Man". So rest
On 09-24-22 19:20, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Why not Trump <=-
How about:
His attempts to stay in power by:
fomenting an armed sedition,
efforts to send false electors to Congress, and
pressuring states to modify their vote count.
That all came way way after the 5 years of media attacks.
The severe & unprecedented media attacks started in 2016.
How about:
His attempts to stay in power by:
fomenting an armed sedition,
efforts to send false electors to Congress, and
pressuring states to modify their vote count.
That all came way way after the 5 years of media attacks.
The severe & unprecedented media attacks started in 2016.
Unlike his predecessor, Biden will not make a deal with Putin.
Or with that other tinhorn dictator known as "Rocket Man". So rest
assured, we are in good hands with All_Biden.
Do you think Putin appreciated Trump ordering a strike on his military base
in Syria?
Or with that other tinhorn dictator known as "Rocket Man". So rest
Oh yea, Trump sold us out to North Korea, didn't he?
Laws were not written because they were not needed.
But they were needed. Otherwise, it would still be legal.
No, Roe was overturned by an extreme SCOTUS.
from the areas considered as part of the Triangle, like Honduras, but instead are coming from countries with failed/failing leftist governments like Venezuela and Cuba.
Some day we will be begging Canada to let us in.
It was not really all that long ago that Venezuela was often listed as an
example of a utopian society by American elites. It was long enough ago
Who'd have thought that a few years down the road we'd be making oil deals with them and harboring their criminals?
How about:
His attempts to stay in power by:
fomenting an armed sedition,
efforts to send false electors to Congress, and
pressuring states to modify their vote count.
That all came way way after the 5 years of media attacks.
The severe & unprecedented media attacks started in 2016.
Severe yes, unprecedented yes, justified yes. The attacks started
because of calling him out on his constant lies and bad steps. In any
case whatever went on in 2016 cannot justify what he did in 2020.
Severe yes, unprecedented yes, justified yes. The attacks started
because of calling him out on his constant lies and bad steps. In any case whatever went on in 2016 cannot justify what he did in 2020.
The severe & unprecedented media attacks started in 2016.
Why are you praising Trump, and the actions he has done?
Bloviating about how he has been criticized by the news media
is not a reason, or even an excuse.
The man is a public figure, and is open game to criticism
from everyone. Including the news media.
And so is Joe Biden.
The difference being Joe Biden doesn't cry about it.
Do you think Putin appreciated Trump ordering a strike on his militar base
in Syria?
Putin didn't mind. There was nothing there, except an empty building.
On 09-25-22 09:36, Mike Powell <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Why not Trump <=-
If catching a politician telling constant lies and making bad steps
was enough to justify such coverage, nearly every politician would get such coverage. Some of them, like Trump, HRC, Biden (for his mental lapses), and Cuomo would have required 24 hour/7 day coverage. As it
was, they didn't all get that level. Only Trump came close.
On 09-25-22 11:55, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Why not Trump <=-
Severe yes, unprecedented yes, justified yes. The attacks started
because of calling him out on his constant lies and bad steps. In any case whatever went on in 2016 cannot justify what he did in 2020.
What Trump did in 2020 doesn't justify or necessitate what the media
did from 2016-now.
The media didn't hover over Trump because they "knew somehow that he
would do something bad" or because "he led a coup attempt." Their
decision to attack him mercilessly came way before any of that.
Before any "lies" too.
Severe yes, unprecedented yes, justified yes. The attacks started
because of calling him out on his constant lies and bad steps. In any
case whatever went on in 2016 cannot justify what he did in 2020.
What Trump did in 2020 doesn't justify or necessitate what the media did from 2016-now.
The media didn't hover over Trump because they "knew somehow that he would do something bad" or because "he led a coup attempt." Their decision to attack him mercilessly came way before any of that. Before any "lies" too.
Before any "lies" too.
Nope. The multiple lies started before 2016.
Trump is a public figure, and has been for decades. The news media
has reported his antics, long before he even contemplated running for president. But you say he should have been given a pass from the get
go. Let Trump do whatever he wants, never questioning a thing. Or
allowing others to criticize him, with or without reason.
Vladimir Putin's perfect pet.
On 09-26-22 12:41, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Why not Trump <=-
Before any "lies" too.
Nope. The multiple lies started before 2016.
What did Trump lie about prior to 2016? Anything relevant to how he'd
run the white house?
On 09-26-22 20:38, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: Why not Trump <=-
I still don't know what he did wrong. Document theft doesn't seem like
a big deal to me.
Vladimir Putin's perfect pet.
Then you do not understand what is involved. Some of the documents that he had contained very sensitive information and were just laying around
in a manner such that multiple people, including foreign spys, could easily get to them. Some of those documents could have gotten intelligence assets of the USA killed. They were assets who were
risking their life to provide the USA with valuable information that
helps to keep America safe. Other documents would have revealed sources and methods that would tell a foreign government where and how we were obtaining valuable intelligence information about that foreign
government. Once that foreign government knew that, they could close
the door on our access and thus deny the USA from obtaining that information -- and thus harm the national security of the USA.
Trump is a public figure, and has been for decades. The news media
has reported his antics, long before he even contemplated running for
president. But you say he should have been given a pass from the get
go. Let Trump do whatever he wants, never questioning a thing. Or
allowing others to criticize him, with or without reason.
I still don't know what he did wrong.
Document theft doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
We let Hillary get away with mishandling documents, so I think
Trump should get away with it too, especially since he was so good to us while president.
Vladimir Putin's perfect pet.
What did Trump do for Putin?
Putin was waiting for Trump to leave office so he could invade Ukraine more
easily.
The troop build-up came after the Biden regime invaded the USA.
Vladimir Putin's perfect pet.
yup, Joe Biden is
What makes it a big deal is those documents were at Mar-a-Lago
when nobody else was there. And anybody could have read them, or
made copies of them. Including our enemies.
This was not a case of a government person using a personal cell
phone to send and receive e-mails. James Comey said it was a mistake,
and so did Hillary Clinton. And as far as anybody knows, Vladimir
Putin never did read any of those juicy e-mails. So no harm, no
foul.
On 09-27-22 12:36, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Why not Trump <=-
Then you do not understand what is involved. Some of the documents that he had contained very sensitive information and were just laying around
in a manner such that multiple people, including foreign spys, could easily get to them. Some of those documents could have gotten intelligence assets of the USA killed. They were assets who were
risking their life to provide the USA with valuable information that
helps to keep America safe. Other documents would have revealed sources and methods that would tell a foreign government where and how we were obtaining valuable intelligence information about that foreign
government. Once that foreign government knew that, they could close
the door on our access and thus deny the USA from obtaining that information -- and thus harm the national security of the USA.
What about Hillary's private email server while she was Secretary of State?
Then you do not understand what is involved. Some of the documents t he had contained very sensitive information and were just laying arou in a manner such that multiple people, including foreign spys, could easily get to them. Some of those documents could have gotten intelligence assets of the USA killed. They were assets who were risking their life to provide the USA with valuable information that helps to keep America safe. Other documents would have revealed sour and methods that would tell a foreign government where and how we wer obtaining valuable intelligence information about that foreign government. Once that foreign government knew that, they could close the door on our access and thus deny the USA from obtaining that information -- and thus harm the national security of the USA.
What about Hillary's private email server while she was Secretary of State?
Is that all you have to say? Bringing up an old "whataboutit" that has been discussed to death and dismissed because none of the emails were marked classified. The appropriate comparison is like comparing a grape to a durian.
"What if spies came to Trump's house and read the documents?"
Nobody has addressed the issue of what's in those documents that Trump illegally obtained, but everyone has enthusiasm about "Trump did something that jeopardized our national security!" We're getting people pumped-up about how "dangerous" Trump is, which has been the name of the game since day 1.
On 09-28-22 14:04, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Why not Trump <=-
Nobody has addressed the issue of what's in those documents that Trump illegally obtained, but everyone has enthusiasm about "Trump did
something that jeopardized our national security!" We're getting people pumped-up about how "dangerous" Trump is, which has been the name of
the game since day 1.
On 09-28-22 16:40, Mike Powell <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: Why not Trump <=-
And yet if you mention that the government should have been trying
harder to get the documents back sooner if they were that sensitive,
you will get a different story about how it was ok to wait.
So somehow the documents were so sensitive that they could have got US assets killed if they fell into the wrong hands, yet not sensitive
enough that they couldn't wait well over a year before trying, in
earnest, to repossess them.
I personally don't believe that they could be both at the same time,
but I am not a Democrat so...
* SLMR 2.1a * Life's essentials: H O C N Ca P Cl K S Na Mg
-!- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
! Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)
Mike Powell wrote to AARON THOMAS <=-
I personally don't believe that they could be both at the same time,
but I am not a Democrat so...
Hello Joe,
Vladimir Putin's perfect pet.
yup, Joe Biden is
I do not see Biden caving in to any of Putin's demands.
Nobody has addressed the issue of what's in those documents that Trump
illegally obtained, but everyone has enthusiasm about "Trump did
something that jeopardized our national security!" We're getting people
pumped-up about how "dangerous" Trump is, which has been the name of
the game since day 1.
What is in those documents is classified information -- some at levels above Top Secret. That is all any one of us needs to know. What Trump did was dangerous and against the law.
On 09-30-22 05:18, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Why not Trump <=-
If what Trump did was so dangerous, and against the law, then
why wasn't he charged with a crime? Oh, that's right. No evidence.
Nobody has addressed the issue of what's in those documents that Trump
illegally obtained, but everyone has enthusiasm about "Trump did
something that jeopardized our national security!" We're getting people
pumped-up about how "dangerous" Trump is, which has been the name of
the game since day 1.
What is in those documents is classified information -- some at levels above Top Secret. That is all any one of us
needs to know. What Trump did was dangerous and against the law.
If what Trump did was so dangerous, and against the law, then
why wasn't he charged with a crime? Oh, that's right. No evidence.
On 09-30-22 05:18, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Why not Trump <=-
If what Trump did was so dangerous, and against the law, then
why wasn't he charged with a crime? Oh, that's right. No evidence.
I have no doubt that he will be charged, but also that he will use any delaying technique he can invent.
Charles Blackburn
The F.B.O BBS 21:1/221 618:250/36
bbs.thefbo.us IPV4/V6
DOVE-Net FSX-Net MicroNET USENET
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux
* Origin: The FBO BBS - bbs.thefbo.us (21:1/221)
If what Trump did was so dangerous, and against the law, then
why wasn't he charged with a crime? Oh, that's right. No evidence.
I have no doubt that he will be charged, but also that he will use any delaying technique he can invent.
TrumpNobody has addressed the issue of what's in those documents that
peopleillegally obtained, but everyone has enthusiasm about "Trump did
something that jeopardized our national security!" We're getting
ofpumped-up about how "dangerous" Trump is, which has been the name
the game since day 1.
how was it illegally obtained?
he was POTUS at the time and was allowed to have them,
not to mention the fact that the fbi/doj/national records offices have had over 6 months TO GO GET THE DAMN THINGS out of mar-a-lago.
but they didnt... i wonder why.
What is in those documents is classified information -- some at
levels above Top Secret. That is all any one of us
which could potentially have been de-classifed when he was in office.
needs to know. What Trump did was dangerous and against the law.
prove it. with undeniable and public record and fact and not just heresay
If what Trump did was so dangerous, and against the law, then
why wasn't he charged with a crime? Oh, that's right. No evidence.
not to mention the shit ton of classified crap that other presidents (on both sides) have taken
(amongst other people)
Nobody has addressed the issue of what's in those documents that
Trumpillegally obtained, but everyone has enthusiasm about "Trump did
something that jeopardized our national security!" We're getting
peoople pumped-up about how "dangerous" Trump is, which has been the name
of the game since day 1.
how was it illegally obtained?That was never the question.
he was POTUS at the time and was allowed to have them,The documents do not belong to him, and never did. Why he chose
not to return them after having been requested to do so is the issue.
not to mention the fact that the fbi/doj/national records offices have had over 6 months TO GO GET THE DAMN THINGS out
of mar-a-lago.
Trump was requested to return the documents in a timely manner.
Trump did not abide by that request, and basically did nothing.
So a legal search was done by the FBI and those documents were
found and retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. Except fot those documents
that could not be found.
but they didnt... i wonder why.
Trump's refusal to return the documents in a timely manner is an
issue. Was his refusal to return those documents illegal? If so, why
was he not charged with a crime?
What is in those documents is classified information -- some at
levels above Top Secret. That is all any one of us
which could potentially have been de-classifed when he was in office.
Not by Trump, given the steps necessary to have done so.
Since those classified documents had never been declassified,
that means Trump told the news media a bald-faced lie.
needs to know. What Trump did was dangerous and against the law.
prove it. with undeniable and public record and fact and not just heresay
Lying under oath is a crime. But lying to the news media can be
a fun activity. As well as lying to MAGA Republicans, who seem to
enjoy that sort of thing.
If what Trump did was so dangerous, and against the law, then
why wasn't he charged with a crime? Oh, that's right. No evidence.
not to mention the shit ton of classified crap that other presidents (on both sides) have taken
(amongst other people)Mike Pence can no longer save Donald Trump ...
Charles Blackburn
The F.B.O BBS 21:1/221 618:250/36
bbs.thefbo.us IPV4/V6
DOVE-Net FSX-Net MicroNET USENET
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux
* Origin: The FBO BBS - bbs.thefbo.us (21:1/221)
Welcome to the echo. FYI, you posted this using your Z21 FSXnet address. This is a FIDO echo so you should be using a Z1
address based on your location
in the USA.
You can netmail me at 618:250/1 or 1:2320/105 if you need assistance getting FIDO set up. I think you also have my email address. :)
never said they belonged to him
If what Trump did was so dangerous, and against the law, then
why wasn't he charged with a crime? Oh, that's right. No evidence.
I have no doubt that he will be charged, but also that he will use any
delaying technique he can invent.
i doubt hunter will be charged or hillary charged,
or biden charged either....
even though there is mountains of evidence against them all
Charles Blackburn
The F.B.O BBS 21:1/221 618:250/36
On 09-30-22 12:50, Charles Blackburn <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Why not Trump <=-
how was it illegally obtained? he was POTUS at the time and was
allowed to have them,
not to mention the fact that the
fbi/doj/national records offices have had over 6 months TO
GO GET THE DAMN THINGS out of mar-a-lago.
but they didnt... i wonder why.
What is in those documents is classified information -
- some at levels above Top Secret. That is all any one of
us
which could potentially have been de-classifed when he was in office.
needs to know. What Trump did was dangerous and against the law.
prove it. with undeniable and public record and fact and not just
heresay
If what Trump did was so dangerous, and against the law, then
why wasn't he charged with a crime? Oh, that's right. No evidence.
not to mention the shit ton of classified crap that other
presidents (on both sides) have taken
On 09-30-22 12:54, Charles Blackburn <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Why not Trump <=-
i doubt hunter will be charged or hillary charged, or
biden charged either.... even though there is mountains of
evidence against them all
On 09-30-22 12:54, Charles Blackburn <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Why not Trump <=-
i doubt hunter will be charged or hillary charged, orName the evidence against any of them. Not hearsay or speculation but
biden charged either.... even though there is mountains of
evidence against them all
real criminal actions.
let me know if this worked... I did send you and email just in case. i think i
ixed it though.
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux
* Origin: The FBO BBS - bbs.thefbo.us (1:135/395)
i doubt hunter will be charged or hillary charged, or
biden charged either.... even though there is mountains of
evidence against them all
Name the evidence against any of them. Not hearsay or speculation but real criminal actions.
On 10-02-22 08:55, Charles Blackburn <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Why not Trump <=-
i ain't doing your homework for you.... we are all entitled to spout
what we beleive, just the lefties like bullshit more
You see Charles, there is a long ongoing belief within these democratic and liberal minds alike that Trump did something wrong.Not by Trump, given the steps necessary to have done so.
Since those classified documents had never been declassified,
that means Trump told the news media a bald-faced lie.
yes by trump... while he was in office he could have declassified them.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 87:21:50 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,333,879 |