Jump to content
craftsman

Trump's residence raided by the FBI

Recommended Posts

The “stable genius” said the FBI uses AK-47s now....

😂😂😂

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

Why i suggested earlier you guys should read the reports.

You are referencing the LA Times as a source?  😂      You do realize that the National Enquirer is more reputable than that rag, right?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

She was investigated, even testified before congress, she cooperated with the investigation.  You can read the reports if you want. 

 

46 minutes ago, dogcows said:

We all know they won’t. If Trump told them the sky was orange instead of blue, they’d avoid looking up for the rest of their lives.

She had classified information stored in a way that clearly violated our laws for how that kind of stuff is supposed to be handled.   You know - the exact same thing that they used as justification to raid Trump's home.    And when she got wind that they were coming to check it out - she destroyed the evidence and lied about what she did.     And then she got off with nothing but a "that was a bad idea" comment from the FBI.  

Tell me what I am missing and how this isn't  glaring evidence of selective prosecution?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Masshole said:

 

She had classified information stored in a way that clearly violated our laws for how that kind of stuff is supposed to be handled.   You know - the exact same thing that they used as justification to raid Trump's home.    And when she got wind that they were coming to check it out - she destroyed the evidence and lied about what she did.     And then she got off with nothing but a "that was a bad idea" comment from the FBI.  

Tell me what I am missing and how this isn't  glaring evidence of selective prosecution?   

Hillary was investigated by the FBI. She was exonerated of any crime.

Trump is currently being investigated by the FBI. He hasn’t been convicted for any crime (yet) either. We shall see the results after the evidence is reviewed.

Yet you are complaining about “selective prosecution.” How about selective whining by right-wing snowflakes?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Hillary was investigated by the FBI. She was exonerated of any crime.

Trump is currently being investigated by the FBI. He hasn’t been convicted for any crime (yet) either. We shall see the results after the evidence is reviewed.

Yet you are complaining about “selective prosecution.” How about selective whining by right-wing snowflakes?

Here is Someone that doesn’t know the meaning of exonerated. 🤡

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Hillary was investigated by the FBI. She was exonerated of any crime.

Trump is currently being investigated by the FBI. He hasn’t been convicted for any crime (yet) either. We shall see the results after the evidence is reviewed.

Yet you are complaining about “selective prosecution.” How about selective whining by right-wing snowflakes?

To whom do you believe Trump is selling nuclear secrets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

To whom do you believe Trump is selling nuclear secrets?

😂

Share this post


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

Hillary was investigated by the FBI. She was exonerated of any crime.

Trump is currently being investigated by the FBI. He hasn’t been convicted for any crime (yet) either. We shall see the results after the evidence is reviewed.

Yet you are complaining about “selective prosecution.” How about selective whining by right-wing snowflakes?

Can you tell me what was the date when the FBI raided the Clinton's Chappaqua home?  

Yah - I'm the one who's being "selective".     Consistency in the application of the laws is kind of a big deal - dontcha think?   

Share this post


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

Can you tell me what was the date when the FBI raided the Clinton's Chappaqua home?  

Yah - I'm the one who's being "selective".     Consistency in the application of the laws is kind of a big deal - dontcha think?   

Yes, it was right after she ignored multiple subpoena's to turn over evidence, after signing affidavits that she had in fact already turned over all the evidence .

Share this post


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

Yes, it was right after she ignored multiple subpoena's to turn over evidence, after signing affidavits that she had in fact already turned over all the evidence .

The whole point is that she was never subpoena'd at all but Trump was for basically doing the same thing.    Good lord you can be dense at times, or are you intentionally avoiding reality? 

Share this post


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

The whole point is that she was never subpoena'd at all but Trump was for basically doing the same thing.    Good lord you can be dense at times, or are you intentionally avoiding reality? 

Because she turned over the evidence when asked, Trump didn't.  EOS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might have to jump in and help with the Trump talking points here.  Red team, should we start another thread to work shop it?

I'm thinking don't try to defend Trump on the holding classified docs.  That's probably untenable unless you want to get into all the legalese of Trump as president being above any scrutiny in this regard which puts us in a bad spot for sh¡tting on Hillary and sets a bad precedent for future presidents.  Look at what we did to ourselves with EOs afterall.  We'd have to explain the nuance of Hillary holding orders of magnitude more info and then wiping the server, but explaining nuance isn't usually a good position to be in when we're flinging sh¡t in the gorilla cage with the other gorillas.

I think the better way to approach this is say something like:

  1. We tend to over classify.  It's not that big of a deal unless we think national security was compromised and there is no indication that is the case.
  2. Trump legitimately thought he could just say something is declassified and that was that.  He was probably wrong about that, but let's just fix the situation now and if he somehow ends up in office, let the DoD do it's job and make sure the proper procedures are in place.  
  3. Trump should've cooperated once the requests were made.  He's stubborn and adversarial which made him a good president in many ways, but the raid was probably unnecessary and the fact they took more than they should've is highly inappropriate.

Bottom line, this isn't the hill to die on.  Let's just take the slap on the wrist and move on.  We gain more by absorbing the hit then trying to fight to the death defending it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can you tell me what was the date when the FBI raided the Clinton's Chappaqua home?  

Yah - I'm the one who's being "selective".     Consistency in the application of the laws is kind of a big deal - dontcha think?   

Yes, you are being selective. You’re ignoring the facts of the cases in favor of “they raided Mar-a-Lago but didn’t raid Hillary’s house”. It’s pure partisanship on your part. Or perhaps you can point to any accusation that Hillary physically had classified documents stored in her home that she repeatedly refused to turn over? Yeah, I didn’t think so. The cases are different, so why would the FBI take the exact same actions in both cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nobody said:

Trump legitimately thought he could just say something is declassified and that was that.

If you believe that, then you believe he’s brain damaged. Everybody knows you can’t magically declassify documents like that.

But if you do believe he’s brain damaged, his latest Hannity interview supports your assertion.

Share this post


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

If you believe that, then you believe he’s brain damaged. Everybody knows you can’t magically declassify documents like that.

But if you do believe he’s brain damaged, his latest Hannity interview supports your assertion.

That's actually not true.  The president does have a farely wide berth in declassifying information. That's not in all cases... for instance things classified through legislation like DOE material (I'm sure we can all connect the dots there).

Where the process likely broke down is even if Trump says "I hereby declassify this information," you would still need to inform the appropriate stakeholders and update the markings so that the fact that the info is declassified would be known.

Trump isn't a very nuanced thinker and very likely thought "I'm president.  I can do what I want" and didn't really think, "How does this action of declassification effect other entities?  Maybe I should inform them."  He thinks at a very macroscopic and simple level and relies on the smart people around him to execute the vision.  That actually works for a president when that vision is "Strong economy good. Waste bad.  Illegal immigration bad."  That's really all we need from the president.  We get in trouble with people like Biden because they say "strong economy good" but what Biden really means is "I know I need to say strong economy good, but what I really mean is I'll wreck the economy to get all the other things I want."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump was on Hannity? I bet more libtards like Dumbcows watched it than normal Americans. I was watching Judge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Because she turned over the evidence when asked, Trump didn't.  EOS.

Quote

In the summer of 2014, lawyers from the State Department noticed a number of emails from Clinton's personal account, while reviewing documents requested by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. A request by the State Department for additional emails led to negotiations with her lawyers and advisors. In October, the State Department sent letters to Clinton and all previous Secretaries of State back to Madeleine Albright requesting emails and documents related to their work while in office. On December 5, 2014, Clinton lawyers delivered 12 file boxes filled with printed paper containing more than 30,000 emails. Clinton withheld almost 32,000 emails deemed to be of a personal nature.

Sound familiar?

Quote

After the existence of the server became publicly known on March 2, 2015, the Select Committee on Benghazi issued a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails two days later. Mills sent an email to PRN on March 9 mentioning the committee's retention request. The PRN technician then had what he described to the FBI as an "oh moment," realizing he had not set the personal emails to be deleted as instructed months earlier. The technician then erased the emails using a free utility, BleachBit, sometime between March 25 and 31. Bloomberg News reported in September 2015 that the FBI had recovered some of the deleted emails.

Quote

Trump reiterated his position as late as August 2018, asking "Look at the crimes that Clinton did with the emails and she deletes 33,000 emails after she gets a subpoena from Congress, and this Justice Department does nothing about it?

 

Share this post


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

Comey said he didn’t prosecute her because in his opinion no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case.  He didn’t say she didn’t commit a crime. So he gave her leeway.  If it were no big deal, why did the democrats freak out on him when he gave his press conference? Why does she continue to bring it up? 

At this point what difference does it make?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Distraction for November, nothing more. The left knows they can't run on their agenda. Their retard base eats this stuff up. What office is Trump running for this year?

This stuff is obvious, focking idiots.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

Because she turned over the evidence when asked, Trump didn't.  EOS.

She smashed her cell phone with a hammer and Bleach-Bit'd her server and then gave them carefully selected emails and claimed she had complied.    It later turned out that she 100% DID NOT comply with turning over the evidence and then Comey said that she "was extremely careless" with the material but then elected to not go any further.   

At this point, with everything we know now - that you can say HC "complied" with that investigation is stunning.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Yes, you are being selective. You’re ignoring the facts of the cases in favor of “they raided Mar-a-Lago but didn’t raid Hillary’s house”. It’s pure partisanship on your part. Or perhaps you can point to any accusation that Hillary physically had classified documents stored in her home that she repeatedly refused to turn over? Yeah, I didn’t think so. The cases are different, so why would the FBI take the exact same actions in both cases?

Yah, I'm definitely the one out of the two of us who is operating on a "pure partisanship"  basis.     Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.   

Regarding the bolded part - she nuked all of the evidence.    If you can then somehow torture that into being "well, she didn't actually refuse to turn over anything". . .  Just stunning cognitive dissonance there.      She didn't have to refuse anything - she nuked it all before they could get to it.     This was later proven when the Weiner investigation turned up a bunch of emails/info that she should have turned over (but didn't because she nuked it).      

Maybe read something other than Slate and Salon and you'd know about these things.  

Share this post


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

Distraction for November, nothing more. The left knows they can't run on their agenda. Their retard base eats this stuff up. What office is Trump running for this year?

This stuff is obvious, focking idiots.

Accurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just goes to show that liberals don’t pay attention to anything hurtful.  She complied. Jeeeez.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Masshole said:

Yah, I'm definitely the one out of the two of us who is operating on a "pure partisanship"  basis.     Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.   

Regarding the bolded part - she nuked all of the evidence.    If you can then somehow torture that into being "well, she didn't actually refuse to turn over anything". . .  Just stunning cognitive dissonance there.      She didn't have to refuse anything - she nuked it all before they could get to it.     This was later proven when the Weiner investigation turned up a bunch of emails/info that she should have turned over (but didn't because she nuked it).      

Maybe read something other than Slate and Salon and you'd know about these things.  

Please explain to me what reason there would be for a raid on her home? This is such a childish response. Trump’s property got raided, so Hillary's also should have been raided?

🍼👶

You were so happy when Hillary was investigated but when Trump’s investigated, it’s a witch hunt. Come on, man...

Share this post


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

Please explain to me what reason there would be for a raid on her home? This is such a childish response. Trump’s property got raided, so Hillary's also should have been raided?

🍼👶

You were so happy when Hillary was investigated but when Trump’s investigated, it’s a witch hunt. Come on, man...

Aagggghhh!!!. . . . I knew I would regret arguing with idiots.    

The whole point was that you and Honcho were saying that the raid on MAL wasn't an example of selective enforcement.    I was pointing out with just the treatment of HC that's it's obviously selective when you compare how the two were handled.    The "reason for a raid on her home" is the exact same reason they used for Trump - she DID NOT comply with their requests for documents.     It's "childish" that you can't (or won't) understand that.     

 

Share this post


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

Aagggghhh!!!. . . . I knew I would regret arguing with idiots.    

The whole point was that you and Honcho were saying that the raid on MAL wasn't an example of selective enforcement.    I was pointing out with just the treatment of HC that's it's obviously selective when you compare how the two were handled.    The "reason for a raid on her home" is the exact same reason they used for Trump - she DID NOT comply with their requests for documents.     It's "childish" that you can't (or won't) understand that.     

 

Why would they raid her home though? What was there that they would want to recover? In Trump’s case, it was classified documents.... which it turns out, were actually there.

What would they be looking for? You can’t just raid a home unless you get a search warrant, and reasonable suspicion of specific stuff you expect to find. So again, what was in her home that they would be searching for?

Share this post


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

Why would they raid her home though? What was there that they would want to recover? In Trump’s case, it was classified documents.... which it turns out, were actually there.

What would they be looking for? You can’t just raid a home unless you get a search warrant, and reasonable suspicion of specific stuff you expect to find. So again, what was in her home that they would be searching for?

33,000 emails on her server not previously turned over.  Have you been living in a cave?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shooter McGavin said:

sophisticated gun :lol:

Attacked :lol:

What a focking baby

He thinks he can declassify simply by thinking about it. 😂

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Horseman said:

33,000 emails on her server not previously turned over.  Have you been living in a cave?

 

The server wasn’t in her house. So again… no reason to raid her house other than Trump cheerleaders whining that it’s unfair Mar-a-Lago got raided and her house didn’t.

Share this post


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

The server wasn’t in her house. So again… no reason to raid her house other than Trump cheerleaders whining that it’s unfair Mar-a-Lago got raided and her house didn’t.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

 

Really weak response. Not even close to the brain dead pedophile Joe Biden.  :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogcows said:

The server wasn’t in her house. So again… no reason to raid her house other than Trump cheerleaders whining that it’s unfair Mar-a-Lago got raided and her house didn’t.

I'm not even going to bother to verify where the server was at the time because picking nits between home and office is pretty stoopid.  There was no raid to go get it.

The point you are avoiding is the ultimate outcome.  The two instances are so similar you couldn't find a better example to Trump's situation if you tried.  Unless they find definitive proof that Trump was planning to sell our nuclear codes to Russia or something the conclusion has to be the same: 

The FBI concluded that Clinton [Trump] had been "extremely careless" but recommended that no charges be filed because Clinton [Trump] did not act with criminal intent, the historical standard for pursuing prosecution.

And I'm wagering that's exactly what is going to happen.  This is all show trying to damage Trump for 2022 and 2024 just like it damaged Clinton in 2016.  Rational people can see this for what it really is.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Masshole said:

She smashed her cell phone with a hammer and Bleach-Bit'd her server and then gave them carefully selected emails and claimed she had complied.    It later turned out that she 100% DID NOT comply with turning over the evidence and then Comey said that she "was extremely careless" with the material but then elected to not go any further.   

At this point, with everything we know now - that you can say HC "complied" with that investigation is stunning.  

Angry words, loud noises..yada yada yada.x

More importantly out of the two books you and RLLD recommended and the one I picked, I started with your choice last night. Thought of the three it would best refresh my US history before I dove into the other books. Have to say I really like the way Ambrose writes, very to the point. Now the way he organizes chapters I have issue with.  I went from Lewis' birth to 1803 and I'm all ready for this trip to start and the next chapter is titled "The Origins of the Expedition 1750-1802".  Damn get these guys into the canoes.  

Good recommendation, thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Horseman said:

I'm not even going to bother to verify where the server was at the time because picking nits between home and office is pretty stoopid.  There was no raid to go get it.

The point you are avoiding is the ultimate outcome.  The two instances are so similar you couldn't find a better example to Trump's situation if you tried.  Unless they find definitive proof that Trump was planning to sell our nuclear codes to Russia or something the conclusion has to be the same: 

The FBI concluded that Clinton [Trump] had been "extremely careless" but recommended that no charges be filed because Clinton [Trump] did not act with criminal intent, the historical standard for pursuing prosecution.

And I'm wagering that's exactly what is going to happen.  This is all show trying to damage Trump for 2022 and 2024 just like it damaged Clinton in 2016.  Rational people can see this for what it really is.

 

So, if that’s what happens, why are so many right-wingers crying? The FBI is allowed to investigate Hillary but not Donald? 

Hillary was investigated thoroughly, and you pointed out the DoJ’s conclusions. For a bit more context, they went through 30,000 emails and found about 100 emails had materials that should have been classified, but were sent to her without classified markings… Which is a big reason why she wasn’t criminally liable.

In the Trump case, we have physical documents which are very clearly marked classified. Now, he is arguing he thinks he declassified them. So far his lawyers are not repeating that claim in court, but if that argument wins, he would end up the same as Hillary at the end of all this. If he can show that he declassified them before leaving office, he’s in the clear. If he can demonstrate he truly believes they were declassified, they might decide not to prosecute either.

There are definitely a few similarities, but there are also a number of important differences. Let the FBI do their job.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

So, if that’s what happens, why are so many right-wingers crying? The FBI is allowed to investigate Hillary but not Donald? 

Link? Who is crying and saying the FBI cant investigate?

I didnt quote the rest because it's so riddled with inaccuracies it's not worth the time go through. You might want to check where you're getting your information from. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Angry words, loud noises..yada yada yada.x

More importantly out of the two books you and RLLD recommended and the one I picked, I started with your choice last night. Thought of the three it would best refresh my US history before I dove into the other books. Have to say I really like the way Ambrose writes, very to the point. Now the way he organizes chapters I have issue with.  I went from Lewis' birth to 1803 and I'm all ready for this trip to start and the next chapter is titled "The Origins of the Expedition 1750-1802".  Damn get these guys into the canoes.  

Good recommendation, thx.

Once you get into the part of the book where they've started the expedition - it gets really good.     It's amazing to read Ambrose's description of places we can drive to now when they were completely unknown (to whitey) and extremely dangerous.    That L&C made it out and back with only losing 1 man (and that was to sickness, not an arrow. . . ) is a remarkable feat.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary’s emails were at Mar-a-Lago?

 

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

×