Jump to content
craftsman

Trump's residence raided by the FBI

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Did you see the part about Trump's new felony law for doing exactly that? 

Of course he didn't. He was too busy looking for new emojis to post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, vomit said:

FYI, the video in the tiktok link that digby posted and said it's not available on twitter, it is:

 

Its also on Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CgfNw6HAwD6/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y%3D

Tiktok isn't some right wing truth platform, but it is for teenage girls.  Anyone over 30 that uses Tiktok is a complete doosh.

Anyone over the age of 16 that watches super hero movies is a bigger doosh. Just sayin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Anyone over the age of 16 that watches super hero movies is a bigger doosh. Just sayin. 

I have a feeling you're in the minority with that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

They are both stupid. And people who use them to try to find legitimate news are stupid. 

So I didn't anticipate what you were going to say or bold? Again- if there was as much evidence and an airtight case against all these people like the right is told they would get them. They aren't going to just let people go around doing shady things willy nilly. Simple fact is there is never as much stuff as the right (or left for that matter) wants to believe there is based on what they are sold. 

And then there’s Hunter…..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Anyone over the age of 16 that watches super hero movies is a bigger doosh. Just sayin. 

Hold on, gutterpedo lying again I see. I’d love for him to post where I said that video wasn’t on Twitter or anywhere else. This is why the idiot got banned until next year. Hopefully they ban all his aliases 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

And then there’s Hunter…..

Jesus.  Please find some way to take down Hunter then.  Who the fock cares about him anymore.  No on here defends him or cares about him.  I hope he gets taken down so people like you finally shut the fock up about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who still thinks this is about the National Archives! Is an idiot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I have a feeling you're in the minority with that one.

Superhero movies make like 700 million to 1.1 billion worldwide- he is way in the minority. 

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

Jesus.  Please find some way to take down Hunter then.  Who the fock cares about him anymore.  No on here defends him or cares about him.  I hope he gets taken down so people like you finally shut the fock up about him.

Exactly. If there is stuff on Hunter that is legitimate and a crime then go after him. Who cares? I don't know him, he isn't the President, and no one but the far right cares- bust him down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Jesus.  Please find some way to take down Hunter then.  Who the fock cares about him anymore.  No on here defends him or cares about him.  I hope he gets taken down so people like you finally shut the fock up about him.

I’m sorry to make a comparison when someone says something like if people on the left were doing crimes  “they would get them” proving that untrue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Anyone who still thinks this is about the National Archives! Is an idiot. 

I think it is that Russian hookers pimp that's behind all of this. Trump is notorious for not paying his bills.

 

Which is weird, because the pimp is pissed off.

 

Because Trump was pissed on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Superhero movies make like 700 million to 1.1 billion worldwide- he is way in the minority. 

Exactly. If there is stuff on Hunter that is legitimate and a crime then go after him. Who cares? I don't know him, he isn't the President, and no one but the far right cares- bust him down. 

Why did The President claim he never spoke to him about his overseas business dealings? It’s been proven not to be true. You lie for a reason.  What is it? So I’d say it does involve the potus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’m sorry to make a comparison when someone says something like if people on the left were doing crimes  “they would get them” proving that untrue. 

Is Hunter the left in your mind?  I don't get the fascination with him.  The dude is a POS and should be in jail.  I don't think I've ever seen anyone here disagree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

Is Hunter the left in your mind?  I don't get the fascination with him.  The dude is a POS and should be in jail.  I don't think I've ever seen anyone here disagree with it.

So Hunter was a rogue actor?  Is that what you think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why did The President claim he never spoke to him about his overseas business dealings? It’s been proven not to be true. You lie for a reason.  What is it? So I’d say it does involve the potus. 

I'm not lying.

I literally never think about Hunter Biden other than when you bring his name up out of the blue on here. I'm not sure what he did to piss you off so much.

But again- if there is stuff on him and they can prove it- bust him and jail him. Who could possibly care that much? Literally no one on here cares about him as much as you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm not lying.

I literally never think about Hunter Biden other than when you bring his name up out of the blue on here. I'm not sure what he did to piss you off so much.

But again- if there is stuff on him and they can prove it- bust him and jail him. Who could possibly care that much? Literally no one on here cares about him as much as you. 

I’m sayin people lie for a reason. Not you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm not lying.

I literally never think about Hunter Biden other than when you bring his name up out of the blue on here. I'm not sure what he did to piss you off so much.

But again- if there is stuff on him and they can prove it- bust him and jail him. Who could possibly care that much? Literally no one on here cares about him as much as you. 

Proof? Are you kidding me? There is an armory of smoking guns in that laptop. Why do you think they lied about it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So Hunter was a rogue actor?  Is that what you think? 

How do you get to the conclusions you make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Proof? Are you kidding me? There is an armory of smoking guns in that laptop. Why do you think they lied about it? 

I'm not saying anything about what is on the laptop or not. I'm saying- if there is and it is legitimate and they have it all- then make the case when you can. 

That's all. I don't know what is or isn't there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Did you see the part about Trump's new felony law for doing exactly that? 

Try harder.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, individuals who willfully remove or destroy records “filed or deposited” in “any public office” ---   or who attempt to do so --- may be subject to fines or up to three years of imprisonment if they deprive the government use of those documents (United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)). Supervisors who direct supervisees to violate this statute can themselves be found guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) (United States v. Salazar, 455 F.3d 1022, 1023 (9th Cir. 2006));

Under 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), individuals with possession or control of records reflecting national defense information who permit their removal, loss, or destruction by “gross negligence” are subject to fines or imprisonment of not more than ten years;

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1924, individuals who remove classified materials without authority and with intent to retain them at another location may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to five years;

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, individuals who destroy records to impede or influence a congressional investigation or proceeding before any U.S. agency may be fined or subject to imprisonment for up to five years;

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, individuals who destroy records to impede or influence an actual or contemplated investigation under the jurisdiction of any U.S. agency may be fined or subject to imprisonment of up to 20 years (United States v. Katakis, 800 F.3d 1017, 1023 (9th Cir. 2015).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm not saying anything about what is on the laptop or not. I'm saying- if there is and it is legitimate and they have it all- then make the case when you can. 

That's all. I don't know what is or isn't there. 

He lied on a federal firearms application. That’s not even up for debate, no laptop necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

Hold on, gutterpedo lying again I see. I’d love for him to post where I said that video wasn’t on Twitter or anywhere else. This is why the idiot got banned until next year. Hopefully they ban all his aliases 

 

1 hour ago, Djgb13 said:

Much better than Twitter cause they don’t ban or filter out news that doesn’t support the left 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’m sayin people lie for a reason. Not you. 

🤣  English teacher can't read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most effective advertisement for the Republicans of all time and it didn't cost them a penny. Democrats are forcing their own extinction. All-Time backfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

He lied on a federal firearms application. That’s not even up for debate, no laptop necessary. 

Then bring the case and punish him. Deserves it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sean Mooney said:

Then bring the case and punish him. Deserves it. 

Why don’t they? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why don’t they? 

Maybe there isn't enough there. In some states it isn't automatically a felony so not sure what the national law is without looking it up

Maybe they are in the process.

Maybe it waits until the Republicans are in power.

Either way- if he gets busted tomorrow or a year from now. Fine. He deserves it. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Maybe there isn't enough there. In some states it isn't automatically a felony so not sure what the national law is without looking it up

Maybe they are in the process.

Maybe it waits until the Republicans are in power.

Either way- if he gets busted tomorrow or a year from now. Fine. He deserves it. 

 

Ok.  Why were the democrats so angry with Comey after his findings and statement about Hillary during the 2016 election? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Ok.  Why were the democrats so angry with Comey after his findings on Hillary during the 2016 election? 

Write them and ask them. Why are you asking me?

Unless you don't know all politicians are hypocrites. Because I mean a person on the left would say "Why were republicans so ready to lock Hillary up but not Donald now?" It's called bias and it permeates politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

Write them and ask them. Why are you asking me?

Unless you don't know all politicians are hypocrites. Because I mean a person on the left would say "Why were republicans so ready to lock Hillary up but not Donald now?" It's called bias and it permeates politics. 

You’re the one claiming that if either side were committing crimes, they would get them.  So why were they so mad at Comey? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You’re the one claiming that if either side were committing crimes, they would get them.  So why were they so mad at Comey? 

Again- write them and ask them. How the hell would I know what like Gavin Newsom was thinking 7 years ago?

Also, the FBI determined there was not enough to press charges on Hillary (or they were choosing not to- I don't remember Comey's exact wording). Different FBI director now and different DOJ and different judges and different stuff. 

The guy who was running some things back then said this:

Quote

 

The Justice Department official who oversaw the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified records says there’s simply no comparing the search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence to the case against the former secretary of State.

“People sling these cases around to suit their political agenda but every case has to stand on its own circumstances,” said David Laufman, who led the Justice Department’s counterintelligence section until 2018 and is now a partner at the firm Wiggin and Dana.

“For the department to pursue a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago tells me that the quantum and quality of the evidence they were reciting — in a search warrant and affidavit that an FBI agent swore to — was likely so pulverizing in its force as to eviscerate any notion that the search warrant and this investigation is politically motivated,” he said.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Ok.  Why were the democrats so angry with Comey after his findings and statement about Hillary during the 2016 election? 

I can take this one:

 

I don't even like hillary. But this was a s*** move on his part. The short version? He sent a letter to Congress saying that there might be some emails that have evidence of blah blah blah against hillary. She was leading in the polls at that point. Her lead dropped in half literally. After that. And then? 2 days before the election? He said 'oh yeah there's nothing in those emails."

_-----------------------------

Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which said the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College.

 

And yet, the story didn’t have a punchline: Two days before the election, Comey disclosed that the emails hadn’t turned up anything new.

---------------------------

Again, I don't like hillary. But what a dickk. And what an unprofessional dickk at that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Write them and ask them. Why are you asking me?

Unless you don't know all politicians are hypocrites. Because I mean a person on the left would say "Why were republicans so ready to lock Hillary up but not Donald now?" It's called bias and it permeates politics. 

When bias turns into 7 years of witch hunting, and weaponizing the DOJ throughout that time. then that's a totally different thing that should be addressed.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump beat the first impeachment because the Republican senators voted to not do anything. Perhaps that was partisan- just like bringing the charges in the House was. After that Trump fired every witness who spoke against him because they weren't loyal enough.

The second time he got off because most said the Senate should not have power over a former sitting President (which I tend to agree with).

A witch hunt implies the person is unfairly prosecuted because they hold unpopular views. Trump was prosecuted multiple times because of real things. Sometimes he was accused of things that probably weren't real. Changing the definition of "witch hunt" doesn't change that fact. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sean Mooney said:

Trump beat the first impeachment because the Republican senators voted to not do anything. Perhaps that was partisan- just like bringing the charges in the House was. After that Trump fired every witness who spoke against him because they weren't loyal enough.

The second time he got off because most said the Senate should not have power over a former sitting President (which I tend to agree with).

A witch hunt implies the person is unfairly prosecuted because they hold unpopular views. Trump was prosecuted multiple times because of real things. Sometimes he was accused of things that probably weren't real. Changing the definition of "witch hunt" doesn't change that fact. 

Russian collusion was a real thing? 

Sad you all don't pay attention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, on the raid. It is coming out today that there was a confidential informant. 

Quote

The raid on Mar-a-Lago was based largely on information from an FBI confidential human source, one who was able to identify what classified documents former President Trump was still hiding and even the location of those documents, two senior government officials told Newsweek.

Quote

 

One is described as “a senior Justice Department official who is a 30-year veteran of the FBI.”

The second is “a senior intelligence official who was briefed on the investigation and the operation.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Again- write them and ask them. How the hell would I know what like Gavin Newsom was thinking 7 years ago?

Also, the FBI determined there was not enough to press charges on Hillary (or they were choosing not to- I don't remember Comey's exact wording). Different FBI director now and different DOJ and different judges and different stuff. 

The guy who was running some things back then said this:

 

I just thought a crime was a crime. That’s the consensus here. You know, no one is above the law and all that. Guess not.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

I can take this one:

 

I don't even like hillary. But this was a s*** move on his part. The short version? He sent a letter to Congress saying that there might be some emails that have evidence of blah blah blah against hillary. She was leading in the polls at that point. Her lead dropped in half literally. After that. And then? 2 days before the election? He said 'oh yeah there's nothing in those emails."

_-----------------------------

Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which said the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College.

 

And yet, the story didn’t have a punchline: Two days before the election, Comey disclosed that the emails hadn’t turned up anything new.

---------------------------

Again, I don't like hillary. But what a dickk. And what an unprofessional dickk at that.

 

Well, he said no prosecutor would charge her.  He didn’t say no crime was committed. Pardon me for being dismissive of any later backtracking.   No one is above the law I’ve been told.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, craftsman said:

Russian collusion was a real thing? 

Sad you all don't pay attention. 

"Accused of some things that probably weren't real"- can you read?

The first impeachment was about the call with Zelensky. The Senate Republicans rejected documents and witnesses and then voted. I believe it is still the only impeachment trial in US history with no witnesses called. Even Trump's defense didn't deny he did what he was accused of just that "it wasn't against the law."

Sad you don't pay attention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×