Let's talk a little truth about Mar-a-Lago.

[VerySkeptical]

Yeah, too bad.

snick

Originally Posted by lustylad

Yeah, too bad I B Hankering doesn't hanker on eccie anymore. He was a maestro in making libtard heads explode.

Thank you for what is nothing more than your opinion. There is little to no evidence to back up your claim.
While leaving out the solid evidence against Trump for various infractions.

You list every entity that has helped supply that evidence and state officials that shot down Trump's post election attempts to overturn the election.

Originally Posted by lustylad

No need to. The deep swamp combo of the DOJ, the FBI, sundry state AGs and the mainstream media do it gladly without being asked.

Meanwhile, they play interference if anyone suggests we need to investigate Biden. They constantly hush up, suppress and lie about Hunter and the ongoing misdeeds of the Biden family crime syndicate.

[reddog1951]

This thread is rife with the nowadays seemingly standard debate tactic (yes, used by both Right and Left)....deflect, deflect,deflect, or at least attempt to change the topic. Actions by Hillary, Biden, Hunter, Graham, Hawley, Cruz are irrelevant to the topic.

If you're charged with speeding, do you really think that saying others were also speeding, but weren't caught provides a valid defense. If you are charged with income tax evasion, do you really think that "everyone else does it" provides a valid defense?

The thing is, "we" on this board don't really KNOW why the FBI executed at LEGAL search warrant at EX President Trump's residence and in that case, anything stated as to reason is conjecture and not yet fact. May be related to failure to return documents that lawfully belong to the people and not EX President Trump...maybe not. Could even be related to investigation not directed at EX President Trump indivually.

What we should all realize is that any search warrant is not issued lightly and is done by due process..especially in a case such as this. Reasonable justification for the warrant must have been provided; that doesn't mean that the general public has the "right" to be informed as to the circumstance at this point.

Finally, as evidenced by my usage of the capitol EX, discussion needs to understand that Trump is no longer President; as previously pointed out he is Citizen Trump and no longer has the authority to promolgate public policy that he enjoyed as President.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Thank you for what is nothing more than your opinion. There is little to no evidence to back up your claim.

What's your informed OPINION, munchy? How much evidence of Biden family corruption is "little to no" evidence? How much more do you need before you finally say get the SOB out of here?







https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...s-laptop-legit


"If you look at the three big flashpoints in American foreign policy today, Ukraine, Russia, and China, the Biden family has received funds, millions of dollars in some cases and tens of millions of dollars, from powerful individuals connected to the government in each of those countries," Schweizer said. "Hunter Biden and Joe Biden had intermingled finances, and Hunter Biden was paying monthly bills, paying for repairs on his home.

Schweizer said the laptop includes messages to and from Hunter Biden that show him taking in at least $31 million in shady international dealings.

"These are the deals that are enunciated," Schweizer said. "There are emails in which foreign nationals are saying, 'I just acquired $5 million into your account please confirm receipt,' so it's clear in black and white, but it's important to point out in the case of China the $31 million came from four Chinese businessmen, each one with links to the highest level of Chinese intelligence."

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

If you're charged with speeding, do you really think that saying others were also speeding, but weren't caught provides a valid defense. If you are charged with income tax evasion, do you really think that "everyone else does it" provides a valid defense?

No, but it sure as hell tells me (and everyone else) that the laws are being administered unevenly and unfairly.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

The thing is, "we" on this board don't really KNOW why the FBI executed a LEGAL search warrant at EX President Trump's residence and in that case, anything stated as to reason is conjecture and not yet fact.

What we should all realize is that any search warrant is not issued lightly and is done by due process...especially in a case such as this.

You just admonished us against conjecture, yet in your next breath you speculate that the warrant is 100% kosher, above board and not tainted by political motives... maybe you should practice what you preach?

[reddog1951]

I might point out that it is your conjecture that the warrant was issued due to political motives. My statement was that warrants are issued by due process bearing in mind the rights of citizen(s) served. No one knows the reason at this point.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

By now I assure you-- Trump or his attorney or both have a copy not only of the warrant, but of the inventory.

Update - your suspicion is confirmed. Trump's attorneys have a copy. No plans to release it at this point.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/10/trump-...-raid-warrant/

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

I might point out that it is your conjecture that the warrant was issued due to political motives. My statement was that warrants are issued by due process bearing in mind the rights of citizen(s) served. No one knows the reason at this point.

I admit my comment is conjecture at this point. For some odd reason, you think yours isn't.

But yeah, it would be great if we could trust Merrick Garland and Chris Wray always to follow "due process bearing in mind the rights of citizen(s) served" and to be pure and free of political motives. I don't.

[reddog1951]

Another deflection...why not wait until more info that might reveal the truth as titled by this this thread emerges?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I know plenty fuck more than you which is clear from your inchoate, nonsensical and asinine posts.

Don't make me laugh. you're just a Ham- and- Egger.

[VerySkeptical]

We got the SOB out of there.
What evidence have you shown? None.
You've shown a book a guy is selling to make money.
Where is the evidence the book claims?

Once again, a Trumpy tries to claim total bullshit.
You claim we have to prove there was no fraud.
You claim we have to prove there isn't completely political motivation behind the warrant.

Some facts are Trump illegally took classified documents to Florida.
A valid search warrant was presented.
Trump got a copy.
They won't show anyone the warrant because it would put more negative light on Trump.

Stop trying to hijack the thread.

Originally Posted by lustylad

What's your informed OPINION, munchy? How much evidence of Biden family corruption is "little to no" evidence? How much more do you need before you finally say get the SOB out of here?







https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...s-laptop-legit


"If you look at the three big flashpoints in American foreign policy today, Ukraine, Russia, and China, the Biden family has received funds, millions of dollars in some cases and tens of millions of dollars, from powerful individuals connected to the government in each of those countries," Schweizer said. "Hunter Biden and Joe Biden had intermingled finances, and Hunter Biden was paying monthly bills, paying for repairs on his home.

Schweizer said the laptop includes messages to and from Hunter Biden that show him taking in at least $31 million in shady international dealings.

"These are the deals that are enunciated," Schweizer said. "There are emails in which foreign nationals are saying, 'I just acquired $5 million into your account please confirm receipt,' so it's clear in black and white, but it's important to point out in the case of China the $31 million came from four Chinese businessmen, each one with links to the highest level of Chinese intelligence."

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Trump was president and controlled congress his first 2 years.

How funny the things you claim you know are wrong. We know why that is. Because we know where you get your information.
The things you KNOW come from a hooker board. So you are as credible as information that comes from people like you.

I surely get a good bit of info - right here - in the forum!
From the sorry lot of you mates here! Salty

We also know why you don't post links. Because there no valid ones that corroborate many of your false narratives.

An investigation looks for facts. If there enough facts that show guilt, they go to a grand jury, etc.
There weren't enough facts to start the legal process to try Trump for conspiracy. Collusion is not a crime, conspiracy is.
Your claim everybody you don't like

Your answer to everything is Trumpys are victims.
You will claim the midterms were fixed if your goals aren't met. Even with all of the Trump lies exposed.

Here are some facts.

Trump’s Baseless Attacks on Times, Post Reporting on Russia Probe

"President Donald Trump has attacked reporting on the Russia investigation by the New York Times and the Washington Post as “fake news,” asserting — along with his press secretary — that the news organizations should return the Pulitzer Prizes they received in 2018 for their work.

But Trump and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany have pointed to no errors in the reporting, and a rereading of the articles shows that the work is quite solid. The reporting is heavily supported by special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and by other publicly available documents and sources.

We asked the White House what exactly was wrong with the papers’ reporting. We received no specifics, and were steered instead to McEnany’s unrelated comments criticizing the Times’ reporting on intelligence indicating Russia had offered bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.

Eileen Murphy, the Times’ senior vice president for communications, said the news outlet was aware of no problems with the articles and would have no comment on Trump’s and McEnany’s remarks. The Post did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s criticism of the reporting is part of a larger pattern: his relentless campaign to demonize the press, dismissing its work as “fake news” and seeking to weaken its credibility, as documented in an April report by the Committee to Protect Journalists.

The Times and the Post shared the 2018 Pulitzer for national reporting. Here’s what the Pulitzer board said of why the work was honored:

Pulitzer board, April 16, 2018: For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.

At the end of her briefing on June 29, McEnany criticized the Times’ article on the bounties and a number of other Times articles. She then turned her attention to the 2018 Pulitzers.

McEnany, June 29: It is inexcusable, the failed Russia reporting of the New York Times. And I think it’s time that the New York Times, and also the Washington Post, hand back their Pulitzers.

Trump assailed the Pulitzer-winning articles on June 25 during an interview with Sean Hannity at a Fox News town hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin, describing both the Times and Post as “so dishonest.”

Trump, June 25: The Pulitzer Prize is very embarrassed; it’s lost a lot of its credibility because all these writers got Pulitzer Prizes on the “Russia, Russia, Russia,” and they were all wrong.

And he demanded that the Pulitzers be returned at a meeting with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in May.

Trump, May 7: [A]ll of those journalists that received a Pulitzer Prize should be forced to give those Pulitzer Prizes back because they were all wrong. There was no — because if you saw today, more documents came out, saying there was absolutely no collusion with Russia. It came out very loud and clear.

And they wrote for years because they tried to do a number on the presidency and this president. It happened to be me. Pulitzer Prizes should all be returned. Because you know what? They were given out falsely. It was fake news. They’re all fake news. Those Pulitzer Prizes should be given back immediately.

And the Pulitzer committee, or whoever gives the prizes, they’re a disgrace, unless they take those prizes back. Because they got Pulitzer Prizes for what turned out to be false stories.

At a coronavirus task force briefing, Trump singled out Times reporter Maggie Haberman, who contributed to a number of the Russia investigation stories, for criticism.

Trump, April 18: Maggie Haberman. You know, she won a Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of Russia, but she was wrong on Russia. So was everyone else. They should all give back their Pulitzer Prizes. … So Maggie Haberman gets a Pulitzer Prize? She’s a third-rate reporter. New York Times.

Trump first demanded that the prizes be returned in a tweet on March 29, 2019 — even before the Mueller report was released. Trump based his call for action on a summary of the report by his attorney general, William Barr. Barr’s four-page synopsis, submitted to Congress, was criticized by Mueller, who said in a letter to Barr that it “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of his work.

So funny that The New York Times & The Washington Post got a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia – And there was No Collusion! So, they were either duped or corrupt? In any event, their prizes should be taken away by the Committee!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 29, 2019

The Trump administration’s approach to the Pulitzer-winning articles reflects its stance on the Mueller report.

Since the report “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government” and did not contain “a traditional prosecution decision” on obstruction of justice, Trump has taken the position that he was exonerated and that there was no obstruction of justice on his part. But that is not what the report said, as we have reported.

No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 24, 2019

Here is what the report said about collusion:

The Mueller report: In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russia offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Here is what the report said about obstruction:

The Mueller report: Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.

As for exoneration, the report says explicitly, “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Mueller wrote: “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

A Review of the Pulitzer-Winning Stories
The joint Pulitzer for the Times and Post was for 20 articles, 10 from each of the papers.

Reading them several years after they were published, it is clear that they hold up well.

For example, early in 2017, the Post ran an article that began:

Washington Post, Feb. 9, 2017: National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

Transcripts released in May confirmed the story. The fact that Flynn publicly lied about his contacts with Kislyak put him at risk of being blackmailed. That’s what led to his firing and his legal problems.

On May 23, 2017, the Post reported that Trump in March of that year had asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials, Daniel Coats, then-director of national intelligence, and Michael S. Rogers, then-director of the National Security Agency, to deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election. Both declined to do so.

The story was confirmed in the Mueller report.

On June 15, 2017, the Post reported that Mueller’s investigation was focusing on whether Trump tried to obstruct justice in the Russia investigation. That certainly turned out to be the case.

On May 16, 2017, the Times ran a story that began:

New York Times, May 16: President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.

The Mueller report said “substantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account.”

On May 20, 2017, the Times reported that Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office that firing Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him. “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” the Times quoted Trump as saying, quoting from a memo that it said was the official account of the meeting. The Mueller report also included evidence to corroborate that account, noting that the White House did not dispute that description of the meeting.

On Sept. 7, 2017, the Times ran a piece headlined “The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election.” The article began by focusing on DCLeaks, a website that had recently gone live, posting material stolen from prominent Americans by Russian hackers. The article revealed Russian efforts on social media to hurt the chances of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

This Russian meddling was extensively chronicled in the Mueller report, which we covered in our story “Kushner Distorts Scope of Russia Interference.”

As we mentioned above, Trump singled out Times reporter Maggie Haberman for criticism. Haberman was a coauthor of two of the Times’ pieces in the Pulitzer package and a contributor to two others. All of the stories have been confirmed or substantially corroborated.

For example, Haberman was a coauthor of the article cited above about Trump telling Russian officials that removing Comey had relieved “great pressure” on him. She also was a coauthor of an article that began, “Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.”

Trump Jr. posted the emails on Twitter. They said exactly what Haberman had reported.

We encourage readers to review all of the award-winning stories on the Pulitzer website. The White House has made no specific challenges to the stories, and a review of them shows that they hold up well."
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/tr...-russia-probe/


One of Murdoc's media outlets carried the laptop story. Fox news wouldn't even run it. The laptop wasn't made available to anyone to check the contents. The FBI had the laptop for almost a year before the election. The Trumpys didn't let it be known there was a hard drive and released it right before the election so there wasn't time to verify any of it. The experts who were finally allowed access said they were forensic messes. There were files being added to the drive after the FBI seized the laptop.
And until the FBI releases the results of its investigation, no one knows what is true or not.

... WRONG.

They KNOW the laptop is REALLY Hunter's.
They knew it at the time... They knew it before the election.

And YOU leave out the fact they claimed the laptop WAS FAKE.

#### Salty

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

NO.


Oh, and he’s not president, which technically makes him a thief.

Can former presidents declassify documents and possess classified material? Is the issue how Trump stored top secret documents?

Former presidents have no power to declassify anything. They can request access to classified material, but only through a heavily regulated process, which does not appear to apply to this case.

They also don’t hold onto their records after their departure, because they belong to the American public. Former presidents are required to transfer their records to the National Archives upon leaving office.

... Trump may have de-classified them BEFORE He left office.
Which was me point of mentioning PRESIDENT Trump.

#### Salty

[reddog1951]

True that he MAY have declassified documents before leaving office to become a regular citizen...but, we don't KNOW THAT AS FACT, do we. Regardless, presidential records/documents don't lawfully belong to EX President Trump, they belong to us all, the people, subject to national security classification. If such documents MAY have been declassified by THEN President Trump, then the people should rightly expect to know their content. That is IF such documents were the subject of the warrant, which we don't KNOW.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Update - your suspicion is confirmed. Trump's attorneys have a copy. No plans to release it at this point.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/10/trump-...-raid-warrant/

So Trump could tell us exactly what it was they were after and git but for political reasons let's the less than savy supporters of his froth at the mouth about the injustice!

Do you not think that bullshit?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Trump may have de-classified them BEFORE He left office.
Which was me point of mentioning PRESIDENT Trump.

#### Salty

Don't you think he would or should have told DOJ if so???

Jesus.

I guess I could say Trump may have gotten in shape while out of office, despite any evidence of such.