User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 11:21:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: What seems like a weak argument? Be specific. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: It seems like a weak argument to me, but I guess we'll find out what the judge thinks in a couple months. What seems like a weak argument? Be specific. I'm obviously talking about what is being argued by the defense in the case right now. If you haven't read the motion and responses you wouldn't understand. They are elevating cherry picking and taking quotes out of context to an art form. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 11:34:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Fair point, I don't mean frivolous in the technical sense, but my impression is that it's mostly a lot of delay tactics. I spent some time scanning the various motions and arguments this afternoon. I have no idea what it takes to get a dismissal based on "selective and vindictive prosecution", but pursuing it seems to serve Trump in at least two ways. He gets whatever delays it generates, and he gets support for his victim narrative. Everybody knows the best way out of all this stuff is for him to win the election, so regardless of what happens with these motions he benefits. It seems like a weak argument to me, but I guess we'll find out what the judge thinks in a couple months. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: So much for our predictions that the case sucked so bad that SCOTUS would kill it. It sucked so bad that it just withered up and died. What are you talking about? Why does anybody think it's significant that she postponed the trial date? If you paid attention to any legitimate legal commentary on this case, nobody actually thought that date would not be moved. Everybody expected multiple months of continued delay because Trump's team is making a bunch of frivolous motions and this judge takes forever to decide on anything. Trump's team made this delay happen very intentionally, and everybody knows it. What happened today was completely expected and predictable. When the judge actually issues a ruling on something then maybe there will be something worth talking about. You get to choose to believe whether a Federal District Court judge postponing trial because of alleged discovery violations is a big deal. I would say it's a big deal, and that not setting a new date until after the motions are heard is also a pretty big deal. Not sure who your legitimate legal commentariat includes. What was their take on Russian Collusion? Frivolous motions? Frivolous has a pretty specific meaning in legal circles. I'm not sure why a Federal judge would set frivolous motions for hearing. What's your defense of this premise? Defendants intentionally delay cases all the time. So what? Is the prosecution's case in chief damaged in a mother-fucking paper case by delay? I'll answer that last one. No. Paper cases move forward even with delay. Only the political hit is damaged by the delay if it's a legitimate case. On the flip side, the defense get's the chance to review evidence and hold the people to their burden, which is their duty. Fair point, I don't mean frivolous in the technical sense, but my impression is that it's mostly a lot of delay tactics. I spent some time scanning the various motions and arguments this afternoon. I have no idea what it takes to get a dismissal based on "selective and vindictive prosecution", but pursuing it seems to serve Trump in at least two ways. He gets whatever delays it generates, and he gets support for his victim narrative. Everybody knows the best way out of all this stuff is for him to win the election, so regardless of what happens with these motions he benefits. It seems like a weak argument to me, but I guess we'll find out what the judge thinks in a couple months. If you have no idea , I'm not inclined to to accept you assessment of weak. We'll see what happens, but this looks like an unraveling of a selective political prosecution of a party opponent. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 1:17:10 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: If you have no idea , I'm not inclined to to accept you assessment of weak. We'll see what happens, but this looks like an unraveling of a selective political prosecution of a party opponent. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: So much for our predictions that the case sucked so bad that SCOTUS would kill it. It sucked so bad that it just withered up and died. What are you talking about? Why does anybody think it's significant that she postponed the trial date? If you paid attention to any legitimate legal commentary on this case, nobody actually thought that date would not be moved. Everybody expected multiple months of continued delay because Trump's team is making a bunch of frivolous motions and this judge takes forever to decide on anything. Trump's team made this delay happen very intentionally, and everybody knows it. What happened today was completely expected and predictable. When the judge actually issues a ruling on something then maybe there will be something worth talking about. You get to choose to believe whether a Federal District Court judge postponing trial because of alleged discovery violations is a big deal. I would say it's a big deal, and that not setting a new date until after the motions are heard is also a pretty big deal. Not sure who your legitimate legal commentariat includes. What was their take on Russian Collusion? Frivolous motions? Frivolous has a pretty specific meaning in legal circles. I'm not sure why a Federal judge would set frivolous motions for hearing. What's your defense of this premise? Defendants intentionally delay cases all the time. So what? Is the prosecution's case in chief damaged in a mother-fucking paper case by delay? I'll answer that last one. No. Paper cases move forward even with delay. Only the political hit is damaged by the delay if it's a legitimate case. On the flip side, the defense get's the chance to review evidence and hold the people to their burden, which is their duty. Fair point, I don't mean frivolous in the technical sense, but my impression is that it's mostly a lot of delay tactics. I spent some time scanning the various motions and arguments this afternoon. I have no idea what it takes to get a dismissal based on "selective and vindictive prosecution", but pursuing it seems to serve Trump in at least two ways. He gets whatever delays it generates, and he gets support for his victim narrative. Everybody knows the best way out of all this stuff is for him to win the election, so regardless of what happens with these motions he benefits. It seems like a weak argument to me, but I guess we'll find out what the judge thinks in a couple months. If you have no idea , I'm not inclined to to accept you assessment of weak. We'll see what happens, but this looks like an unraveling of a selective political prosecution of a party opponent. You're a lawyer, why don't you do a little reading and tell us your professional opinion? https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 6:27:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm obviously talking about what is being argued by the defense in the case right now. If you haven't read the motion and responses you wouldn't understand. They are elevating cherry picking and taking quotes out of context to an art form. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: It seems like a weak argument to me, but I guess we'll find out what the judge thinks in a couple months. What seems like a weak argument? Be specific. I'm obviously talking about what is being argued by the defense in the case right now. If you haven't read the motion and responses you wouldn't understand. They are elevating cherry picking and taking quotes out of context to an art form. I ask again… What specifically is being argued by the defense in the case right now, that you are describing as a “weak argument.” YOU made the claim. Put up or shut up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 6:42:50 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Morlawn66: She seems to be the only one putting the info out there . That staged photo has to be causing problems, it was meant to sway and influence opinions . If she’s smart, she will start crawling everywhere she goes-she going to step on a banana peel if she keeps this up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 8:46:35 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: You're a lawyer, why don't you do a little reading and tell us your professional opinion? https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: So much for our predictions that the case sucked so bad that SCOTUS would kill it. It sucked so bad that it just withered up and died. What are you talking about? Why does anybody think it's significant that she postponed the trial date? If you paid attention to any legitimate legal commentary on this case, nobody actually thought that date would not be moved. Everybody expected multiple months of continued delay because Trump's team is making a bunch of frivolous motions and this judge takes forever to decide on anything. Trump's team made this delay happen very intentionally, and everybody knows it. What happened today was completely expected and predictable. When the judge actually issues a ruling on something then maybe there will be something worth talking about. You get to choose to believe whether a Federal District Court judge postponing trial because of alleged discovery violations is a big deal. I would say it's a big deal, and that not setting a new date until after the motions are heard is also a pretty big deal. Not sure who your legitimate legal commentariat includes. What was their take on Russian Collusion? Frivolous motions? Frivolous has a pretty specific meaning in legal circles. I'm not sure why a Federal judge would set frivolous motions for hearing. What's your defense of this premise? Defendants intentionally delay cases all the time. So what? Is the prosecution's case in chief damaged in a mother-fucking paper case by delay? I'll answer that last one. No. Paper cases move forward even with delay. Only the political hit is damaged by the delay if it's a legitimate case. On the flip side, the defense get's the chance to review evidence and hold the people to their burden, which is their duty. Fair point, I don't mean frivolous in the technical sense, but my impression is that it's mostly a lot of delay tactics. I spent some time scanning the various motions and arguments this afternoon. I have no idea what it takes to get a dismissal based on "selective and vindictive prosecution", but pursuing it seems to serve Trump in at least two ways. He gets whatever delays it generates, and he gets support for his victim narrative. Everybody knows the best way out of all this stuff is for him to win the election, so regardless of what happens with these motions he benefits. It seems like a weak argument to me, but I guess we'll find out what the judge thinks in a couple months. If you have no idea , I'm not inclined to to accept you assessment of weak. We'll see what happens, but this looks like an unraveling of a selective political prosecution of a party opponent. You're a lawyer, why don't you do a little reading and tell us your professional opinion? https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Lol. Did I claim they were weak? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 4:23:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You are evasive. I ask again… What specifically is being argued by the defense in the case right now, that you are describing as a “weak argument.” YOU made the claim. Put up or shut up. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: It seems like a weak argument to me, but I guess we'll find out what the judge thinks in a couple months. What seems like a weak argument? Be specific. I'm obviously talking about what is being argued by the defense in the case right now. If you haven't read the motion and responses you wouldn't understand. They are elevating cherry picking and taking quotes out of context to an art form. I ask again… What specifically is being argued by the defense in the case right now, that you are describing as a “weak argument.” YOU made the claim. Put up or shut up. @CMiller *crickets* |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 7:52:38 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: @CMiller *crickets* Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: It seems like a weak argument to me, but I guess we'll find out what the judge thinks in a couple months. What seems like a weak argument? Be specific. I'm obviously talking about what is being argued by the defense in the case right now. If you haven't read the motion and responses you wouldn't understand. They are elevating cherry picking and taking quotes out of context to an art form. I ask again… What specifically is being argued by the defense in the case right now, that you are describing as a “weak argument.” YOU made the claim. Put up or shut up. @CMiller *crickets* I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 7:57:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Lol. Did I claim they were weak? I think it’s shameful that neither of you will raise a single finger to prove he’s right. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 7:58:20 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: It seems like a weak argument to me, but I guess we'll find out what the judge thinks in a couple months. What seems like a weak argument? Be specific. I'm obviously talking about what is being argued by the defense in the case right now. If you haven't read the motion and responses you wouldn't understand. They are elevating cherry picking and taking quotes out of context to an art form. I ask again… What specifically is being argued by the defense in the case right now, that you are describing as a “weak argument.” YOU made the claim. Put up or shut up. @CMiller *crickets* I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. How much longer should the people "play your games"? For fucks sake, the .gov is rotten from top to bottom & all you want to preach is how upstanding the bureaucracy is. It's not some divine revelation. You either open your eyes or you continue to troll. You should log out & not log back in. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 8:16:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: It seems like a weak argument to me, but I guess we'll find out what the judge thinks in a couple months. What seems like a weak argument? Be specific. I'm obviously talking about what is being argued by the defense in the case right now. If you haven't read the motion and responses you wouldn't understand. They are elevating cherry picking and taking quotes out of context to an art form. I ask again… What specifically is being argued by the defense in the case right now, that you are describing as a “weak argument.” YOU made the claim. Put up or shut up. @CMiller *crickets* I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. You made a specific claim. You’ve been called on it by several members. You then become evasive and refuse to back up your claim. One must assume that you are just making it up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 8:30:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith.  |
|
|
|
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 8:42:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. lol, oh the irony |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 8:44:16 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M4-AK: This makes Watergate look like nothing. I disagree. I think it makes watergate look like the hit job it was. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 9:02:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: StanGram]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. I've followed this line of quotes back to the beginning and am not seeing anything that wasn't said in good faith. This reads as if you can't provide a reason for your opinion, and are taking your ball and going home. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 12:39:56 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: I've followed this line of quotes back to the beginning and am not seeing anything that wasn't said in good faith. This reads as if you can't provide a reason for your opinion, and are taking your ball and going home. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Originally Posted By CMiller: I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. I've followed this line of quotes back to the beginning and am not seeing anything that wasn't said in good faith. This reads as if you can't provide a reason for your opinion, and are taking your ball and going home. There's a lot of context here that is not obvious. I could link to previous threads that went many pages where we went round and round on the same questions over and over. I should have stopped arguing with him a long time ago and just ignored his posts. He makes big claims, never backs them up, moves the goalposts, cherry picks, etc. It's just all the usual common logical fallacies that almost always dominate Internet discourse. Then if you answer him with a good point he just ignores it and repeats the same original claims again. In this specific instance, after reading both the defense motion and the government's response, I stated my opinion that the arguments being made by Trump's team seemed weak. He demanded that I be specific, yet I'd bet he hasn't even read the documents I was reacting to. Why would I waste my time explaining my thoughts, so he can do more straw man and red herring and nut picking and cherry picking and whatever else he comes up with without even reading the source documents? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 12:51:29 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: There's a lot of context here that is not obvious. I could link to previous threads that went many pages where we went round and round on the same questions over and over. I should have stopped arguing with him a long time ago and just ignored his posts. He makes big claims, never backs them up, moves the goalposts, cherry picks, etc. It's just all the usual common logical fallacies that almost always dominate Internet discourse. Then if you answer him with a good point he just ignores it and repeats the same original claims again. In this specific instance, after reading both the defense motion and the government's response, I stated my opinion that the arguments being made by Trump's team seemed weak. He demanded that I be specific, yet I'd bet he hasn't even read the documents I was reacting to. Why would I waste my time explaining my thoughts, so he can do more straw man and red herring and nut picking and cherry picking and whatever else he comes up with without even reading the source documents? PROJECTION |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 6:19:21 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: There's a lot of context here that is not obvious. I could link to previous threads that went many pages where we went round and round on the same questions over and over. I should have stopped arguing with him a long time ago and just ignored his posts. He makes big claims, never backs them up, moves the goalposts, cherry picks, etc. It's just all the usual common logical fallacies that almost always dominate Internet discourse. Then if you answer him with a good point he just ignores it and repeats the same original claims again. In this specific instance, after reading both the defense motion and the government's response, I stated my opinion that the arguments being made by Trump's team seemed weak. He demanded that I be specific, yet I'd bet he hasn't even read the documents I was reacting to. Why would I waste my time explaining my thoughts, so he can do more straw man and red herring and nut picking and cherry picking and whatever else he comes up with without even reading the source documents? If you've read the supporting docs this should be easy for you to articulate. The entire point of a discussion thread is to discuss and pick apart each other's ideas. What arguments do you consider weak and why? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 6:50:47 AM EDT
[#19]
So, to summarize (since I don't speak Lawyereze):
1. Archives and the Whitehouse collaborated before the raid. There's an opinion? that says 'shit like this happens in one term admins, give it time'. 2. Biden pulls (in an unusual move) Trump's Clearance. 3. There's a Raid in August at Mar A Lago. 4. FBI brings those 'Classified' covers with them...the ones they released the photos of to the public. 5. Boxes are hauled to DC rather than in the jurisdiction (Florida) to be dealt with by the 'head office' area of the FBI. 6. They move files out of position in the boxes and 'put those covers' in the boxes to represent the position of the classified docs. But so far, nobody is sure if the markers are where the files were supposed to be, and what they were next to? 7. DOE puts out an opinion (for the first time) that says Trump loses his access when he loses his office (never a written opinion before, and the date of his access to nuclear info wasn't the day he was sworn in). 8. Special Prosecutor's office just now admitted to 4 and 6 above. Somewhere in there (2.5 months after the Raid on Mar A Lago) Biden and Pence turned over classified docs they had that were (at least in Biden's case) in insecure locations and neither should have held on to because they were not the classifying authority. Am I correct so far? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 7:36:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: There's a lot of context here that is not obvious. I could link to previous threads that went many pages where we went round and round on the same questions over and over. I should have stopped arguing with him a long time ago and just ignored his posts. He makes big claims, never backs them up, moves the goalposts, cherry picks, etc. It's just all the usual common logical fallacies that almost always dominate Internet discourse. Then if you answer him with a good point he just ignores it and repeats the same original claims again. In this specific instance, after reading both the defense motion and the government's response, I stated my opinion that the arguments being made by Trump's team seemed weak. He demanded that I be specific, yet I'd bet he hasn't even read the documents I was reacting to. Why would I waste my time explaining my thoughts, so he can do more straw man and red herring and nut picking and cherry picking and whatever else he comes up with without even reading the source documents? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By StanGram: Originally Posted By CMiller: I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. I've followed this line of quotes back to the beginning and am not seeing anything that wasn't said in good faith. This reads as if you can't provide a reason for your opinion, and are taking your ball and going home. There's a lot of context here that is not obvious. I could link to previous threads that went many pages where we went round and round on the same questions over and over. I should have stopped arguing with him a long time ago and just ignored his posts. He makes big claims, never backs them up, moves the goalposts, cherry picks, etc. It's just all the usual common logical fallacies that almost always dominate Internet discourse. Then if you answer him with a good point he just ignores it and repeats the same original claims again. In this specific instance, after reading both the defense motion and the government's response, I stated my opinion that the arguments being made by Trump's team seemed weak. He demanded that I be specific, yet I'd bet he hasn't even read the documents I was reacting to. Why would I waste my time explaining my thoughts, so he can do more straw man and red herring and nut picking and cherry picking and whatever else he comes up with without even reading the source documents? You didn’t actually read the source documents. If you did, you would simply quote the portion that supports your claim. But you didn’t, because you can’t. Everyone can see this. lol |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 7:40:05 AM EDT
[#21]
@cmiller : Hey! What's all this lying around shit?
GD : [to @cmiller] War's over, man. Cannon dropped the big one. @cmiller : What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until TDS decide it is! Was it over when the Trump really didn’t piss on hookers in Obama’s hotel bed? Hell no! GD : [to @M4-AK] pissing on hookers? @M4-AK : Forget it, he's rolling. @cmiller : And it ain't over now. 'Cause when Biden, the DOJ and FBI gets caught falsifying evidence'….. [thinks hard of something to say] @cmiller : The Biden, the DOJ and FBI just falsifies more evidence! Who believes me? Let's go!…….AH……. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 7:43:47 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AFARR: So, to summarize (since I don't speak Lawyereze): 1. Archives and the Whitehouse collaborated before the raid. There's an opinion? that says 'shit like this happens in one term admins, give it time'. 2. Biden pulls (in an unusual move) Trump's Clearance. 3. There's a Raid in August at Mar A Lago. 4. FBI brings those 'Classified' covers with them...the ones they released the photos of to the public. 5. Boxes are hauled to DC rather than in the jurisdiction (Florida) to be dealt with by the 'head office' area of the FBI. 6. They move files out of position in the boxes and 'put those covers' in the boxes to represent the position of the classified docs. But so far, nobody is sure if the markers are where the files were supposed to be, and what they were next to? 7. DOE puts out an opinion (for the first time) that says Trump loses his access when he loses his office (never a written opinion before, and the date of his access to nuclear info wasn't the day he was sworn in). 8. Special Prosecutor's office just now admitted to 4 and 6 above. Somewhere in there (2.5 months after the Raid on Mar A Lago) Biden and Pence turned over classified docs they had that were (at least in Biden's case) in insecure locations and neither should have held on to because they were not the classifying authority. Am I correct so far? You're missing the part that they also demanded Trump take possession of the boxes of documents as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 8:03:31 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nu3gawhat: You're missing the part that they also demanded Trump take possession of the boxes of documents as well. So 0.5: Boxes stored securely in DC at end of Trump Admin, then Biden Admin insisted on shipping them to Mar a Lago. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 8:26:00 AM EDT
[#24]
Don't forget illegally appointed "special" council .
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 8:28:54 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. Lol. |
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 8:39:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: eolian]
[#26]
Johnson continues to give the democrats everything they want.
BREAKING: SPEAKER JOHNSON TELLS POLITICO HE WILL NOT ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1788661136428056747 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 8:47:15 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eolian: Johnson continues to give the democrats everything they want. BREAKING: SPEAKER JOHNSON TELLS POLITICO HE WILL NOT ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1788661136428056747 No matter what you think of the Speaker, I think this is the correct move. It would just give the Left and MSM additional talking points on how Domestic MAGA Terrorists are destroying the fabric of democracy. Jack Smith is going to lose with the full weight of the swamp behind him and when Trump goes on his Law & Order tour, he'll be given a wider berth given the precedents now being set. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 8:53:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Morlawn66]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AFARR: So, to summarize (since I don't speak Lawyereze): 1. Archives and the Whitehouse collaborated before the raid. There's an opinion? that says 'shit like this happens in one term admins, give it time'. 2. Biden pulls (in an unusual move) Trump's Clearance. 3. There's a Raid in August at Mar A Lago. 4. FBI brings those 'Classified' covers with them...the ones they released the photos of to the public. 5. Boxes are hauled to DC rather than in the jurisdiction (Florida) to be dealt with by the 'head office' area of the FBI. 6. They move files out of position in the boxes and 'put those covers' in the boxes to represent the position of the classified docs. But so far, nobody is sure if the markers are where the files were supposed to be, and what they were next to? 7. DOE puts out an opinion (for the first time) that says Trump loses his access when he loses his office (never a written opinion before, and the date of his access to nuclear info wasn't the day he was sworn in). 8. Special Prosecutor's office just now admitted to 4 and 6 above. Somewhere in there (2.5 months after the Raid on Mar A Lago) Biden and Pence turned over classified docs they had that were (at least in Biden's case) in insecure locations and neither should have held on to because they were not the classifying authority. Am I correct so far? I am still trying to find the photo of when the FBI recovered Joey's STOLEN docs and had them spread out all over his garage and the hood of his Corvette with similar cover sheets . Has to exist as that is SOP isn't it ? , maybe it was at the Penn Biden center ? If not , why not ? They hauled the boxes away most likely undisturbed and sealed shut . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 8:56:27 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jeffg: Lol. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jeffg: Originally Posted By CMiller: I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. Lol.  Attached File |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 9:00:45 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm tired of playing your games, you have made it very evident you are not engaging in good faith. That's rich. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 9:23:02 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 0002s: @cmiller : Hey! What's all this lying around shit? GD : [to @cmiller] War's over, man. Cannon dropped the big one. @cmiller : What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until TDS decide it is! Was it over when the Trump really didn’t piss on hookers in Obama’s hotel bed? Hell no! GD : [to @M4-AK] pissing on hookers? @M4-AK : Forget it, he's rolling. @cmiller : And it ain't over now. 'Cause when Biden, the DOJ and FBI gets caught falsifying evidence'….. [thinks hard of something to say] @cmiller : The Biden, the DOJ and FBI just falsifies more evidence! Who believes me? Let's go!…….AH……. Brilliant! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 9:24:44 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: No matter what you think of the Speaker, I think this is the correct move. It would just give the Left and MSM additional talking points on how Domestic MAGA Terrorists are destroying the fabric of democracy. Jack Smith is going to lose with the full weight of the swamp behind him and when Trump goes on his Law & Order tour, he'll be given a wider berth given the precedents now being set. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: Originally Posted By eolian: Johnson continues to give the democrats everything they want. BREAKING: SPEAKER JOHNSON TELLS POLITICO HE WILL NOT ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1788661136428056747 No matter what you think of the Speaker, I think this is the correct move. It would just give the Left and MSM additional talking points on how Domestic MAGA Terrorists are destroying the fabric of democracy. Jack Smith is going to lose with the full weight of the swamp behind him and when Trump goes on his Law & Order tour, he'll be given a wider berth given the precedents now being set. This is incorrect. The "power of the purse" specifically was designed as a check-and-balance against an over-reaching alternate branch of the Feral Government. Justice Scalia pointed this out one time in a meeting with Congress, pointing out that all the abuses of authority that the Congress was complaining about could easily be rectified by exercising their existing Constitutional authority with the power of the purse. Speaker Johnson should have moved with all deliberate speed to put a stop to a witch hunt political prosecution particularly with recent revelations. Johnson is a......disappointment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 9:32:17 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: There's a lot of context here that is not obvious. I could link to previous threads that went many pages where we went round and round on the same questions over and over. I should have stopped arguing with him a long time ago and just ignored his posts. He makes big claims, never backs them up, moves the goalposts, cherry picks, etc. It's just all the usual common logical fallacies that almost always dominate Internet discourse. Then if you answer him with a good point he just ignores it and repeats the same original claims again. In this specific instance, after reading both the defense motion and the government's response, I stated my opinion that the arguments being made by Trump's team seemed weak. He demanded that I be specific, yet I'd bet he hasn't even read the documents I was reacting to. Why would I waste my time explaining my thoughts, so he can do more straw man and red herring and nut picking and cherry picking and whatever else he comes up with without even reading the source documents? I've seen most of it, other threads too. I don't recall this particular question, and it's odd you are refusing to answer it despite having an opinion on the subject. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 9:41:04 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By planemaker: This is incorrect. The "power of the purse" specifically was designed as a check-and-balance against an over-reaching alternate branch of the Feral Government. Justice Scalia pointed this out one time in a meeting with Congress, pointing out that all the abuses of authority that the Congress was complaining about could easily be rectified by exercising their existing Constitutional authority with the power of the purse. Speaker Johnson should have moved with all deliberate speed to put a stop to a witch hunt political prosecution particularly with recent revelations. Johnson is a......disappointment. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By planemaker: Originally Posted By Advance: Originally Posted By eolian: Johnson continues to give the democrats everything they want. BREAKING: SPEAKER JOHNSON TELLS POLITICO HE WILL NOT ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1788661136428056747 No matter what you think of the Speaker, I think this is the correct move. It would just give the Left and MSM additional talking points on how Domestic MAGA Terrorists are destroying the fabric of democracy. Jack Smith is going to lose with the full weight of the swamp behind him and when Trump goes on his Law & Order tour, he'll be given a wider berth given the precedents now being set. This is incorrect. The "power of the purse" specifically was designed as a check-and-balance against an over-reaching alternate branch of the Feral Government. Justice Scalia pointed this out one time in a meeting with Congress, pointing out that all the abuses of authority that the Congress was complaining about could easily be rectified by exercising their existing Constitutional authority with the power of the purse. Speaker Johnson should have moved with all deliberate speed to put a stop to a witch hunt political prosecution particularly with recent revelations. Johnson is a......disappointment. Could the House Republicans push a measure through unilaterally? And if Judge Cannon has it on hold indefinitely, is it a moot point? It would seem to be just meat for infighting amongst Republicans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 9:43:26 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: I've seen most of it, other threads too. I don't recall this particular question, and it's odd you are refusing to answer it despite having an opinion on the subject. I find it interesting that he has no problem posting 25, ten paragraph responses per page, yet finds this particular request too taxing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:07:31 AM EDT
[#36]
@Cmiller
When you encounter one person saying you suck and you're a projecting asshole, then maybe that person is the asshole. When that's all you encounter all day, maybe you are the asshole. BTW, got any guns or shooting topics that you are interested in? Or, is that not included in your forum sliding job description? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:15:35 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: I've seen most of it, other threads too. I don't recall this particular question, and it's odd you are refusing to answer it despite having an opinion on the subject. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Originally Posted By CMiller: There's a lot of context here that is not obvious. I could link to previous threads that went many pages where we went round and round on the same questions over and over. I should have stopped arguing with him a long time ago and just ignored his posts. He makes big claims, never backs them up, moves the goalposts, cherry picks, etc. It's just all the usual common logical fallacies that almost always dominate Internet discourse. Then if you answer him with a good point he just ignores it and repeats the same original claims again. In this specific instance, after reading both the defense motion and the government's response, I stated my opinion that the arguments being made by Trump's team seemed weak. He demanded that I be specific, yet I'd bet he hasn't even read the documents I was reacting to. Why would I waste my time explaining my thoughts, so he can do more straw man and red herring and nut picking and cherry picking and whatever else he comes up with without even reading the source documents? I've seen most of it, other threads too. I don't recall this particular question, and it's odd you are refusing to answer it despite having an opinion on the subject. If you've read everything else he's posted, it's really not that odd. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:22:23 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By APPARITION: If you've read everything else he's posted, it's really not that odd.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:27:16 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ThornBooger: Pass. I don't waste time on symbolic gestures. I'll go shooting instead, should have the range to myself while the lemmings stand in line for feelz. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ThornBooger: Originally Posted By DPeacher: Everyone just needs to vote harder next time! I don't waste time on symbolic gestures. I'll go shooting instead, should have the range to myself while the lemmings stand in line for feelz. In the off chance you could be wrong just give up and let them win by default anyway. Great plan. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:29:18 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 9D1Alpha: Could the House Republicans push a measure through unilaterally? And if Judge Cannon has it on hold indefinitely, is it a moot point? It would seem to be just meat for infighting amongst Republicans. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 9D1Alpha: Originally Posted By planemaker: Originally Posted By Advance: Originally Posted By eolian: Johnson continues to give the democrats everything they want. BREAKING: SPEAKER JOHNSON TELLS POLITICO HE WILL NOT ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1788661136428056747 No matter what you think of the Speaker, I think this is the correct move. It would just give the Left and MSM additional talking points on how Domestic MAGA Terrorists are destroying the fabric of democracy. Jack Smith is going to lose with the full weight of the swamp behind him and when Trump goes on his Law & Order tour, he'll be given a wider berth given the precedents now being set. This is incorrect. The "power of the purse" specifically was designed as a check-and-balance against an over-reaching alternate branch of the Feral Government. Justice Scalia pointed this out one time in a meeting with Congress, pointing out that all the abuses of authority that the Congress was complaining about could easily be rectified by exercising their existing Constitutional authority with the power of the purse. Speaker Johnson should have moved with all deliberate speed to put a stop to a witch hunt political prosecution particularly with recent revelations. Johnson is a......disappointment. Could the House Republicans push a measure through unilaterally? And if Judge Cannon has it on hold indefinitely, is it a moot point? It would seem to be just meat for infighting amongst Republicans. Good question. I'm not sure whether the funding for the special prosecutor comes out of the general budget or whether they have to appropriate "special" funds for the "special" prosecutor. If it's the latter, there may be an opportunity to cut it off. If it's the former, they'll have to wait until they pass another CR. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:37:02 AM EDT
[#41]
Why is this a pinned topic?
 Pinning a topic is a sure way to kill visibility and in turn discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:23:54 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 80085: Why is this a pinned topic? Pinning a topic is a sure way to kill visibility and in turn discussion. Meh, wouldn't be the first time someone hit the button by accident. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:36:36 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm obviously talking about what is being argued by the defense in the case right now. If you haven't read the motion and responses you wouldn't understand. They are elevating cherry picking and taking quotes out of context to an art form. There's no chain of custody anymore. The evidence has been compromised. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:40:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: prolapsed_cranium]
[#44]
Dupe
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:51:47 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: I've seen most of it, other threads too. I don't recall this particular question, and it's odd you are refusing to answer it despite having an opinion on the subject. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StanGram: Originally Posted By CMiller: There's a lot of context here that is not obvious. I could link to previous threads that went many pages where we went round and round on the same questions over and over. I should have stopped arguing with him a long time ago and just ignored his posts. He makes big claims, never backs them up, moves the goalposts, cherry picks, etc. It's just all the usual common logical fallacies that almost always dominate Internet discourse. Then if you answer him with a good point he just ignores it and repeats the same original claims again. In this specific instance, after reading both the defense motion and the government's response, I stated my opinion that the arguments being made by Trump's team seemed weak. He demanded that I be specific, yet I'd bet he hasn't even read the documents I was reacting to. Why would I waste my time explaining my thoughts, so he can do more straw man and red herring and nut picking and cherry picking and whatever else he comes up with without even reading the source documents? I've seen most of it, other threads too. I don't recall this particular question, and it's odd you are refusing to answer it despite having an opinion on the subject. No, it's just the latest one to come up and I'm cutting myself off from the insanity (doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:56:56 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mnew007: @Cmiller When you encounter one person saying you suck and you're a projecting asshole, then maybe that person is the asshole. When that's all you encounter all day, maybe you are the asshole. BTW, got any guns or shooting topics that you are interested in? Or, is that not included in your forum sliding job description? Guns are boring to me now, I did all that many years ago in various forums, as well as doing lots of lurking here over the last 10+ years. Let me know when somebody comes up with something new and innovative worth talking about.  (But for what it's worth, I do read plenty of threads about other topics, I just rarely have anything to contribute) Believe it or not, I really don't care what happens with Trump. I could see reasons to be happy regardless of which way any of these court cases go or the election. What I'm really interested in is all the legal questions that are coming up because of him. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 12:07:46 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AFARR: So, to summarize (since I don't speak Lawyereze): 1. Archives and the Whitehouse collaborated before the raid. There's an opinion? that says 'shit like this happens in one term admins, give it time'. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AFARR: So, to summarize (since I don't speak Lawyereze): 1. Archives and the Whitehouse collaborated before the raid. There's an opinion? that says 'shit like this happens in one term admins, give it time'. More like there was communication and coordination between various parts of the executive branch while doing executive functions. I suggest reading the defense motion and various ensuing responses if you want to understand this one much better. 2. Biden pulls (in an unusual move) Trump's Clearance. I don't think this is a thing, all I've seen is Biden saying he's not going to give Trump classified briefings because he thinks he is a security risk. 3. There's a Raid in August at Mar A Lago. 4. FBI brings those 'Classified' covers with them...the ones they released the photos of to the public. Not so fast -- read page 4 of this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Remember-this-pic-from-the-FBI-Mar-a-Lago-raid-/5-2724051/&page=4 I know everybody is making the claim, but I want to know the evidence that shows we are looking at the placeholders in that picture and not the actual document covers. 5. Boxes are hauled to DC rather than in the jurisdiction (Florida) to be dealt with by the 'head office' area of the FBI. Seems reasonable, considering it's dealing with highly sensitive national security stuff, right? 6. They move files out of position in the boxes and 'put those covers' in the boxes to represent the position of the classified docs. But so far, nobody is sure if the markers are where the files were supposed to be, and what they were next to? There's no claim that they aren't all in the correct boxes, The question is whether they were at Mar-A-Lago, not what order they were in the boxes. 7. DOE puts out an opinion (for the first time) that says Trump loses his access when he loses his office (never a written opinion before, and the date of his access to nuclear info wasn't the day he was sworn in). 8. Special Prosecutor's office just now admitted to 4 and 6 above. Somewhere in there (2.5 months after the Raid on Mar A Lago) Biden and Pence turned over classified docs they had that were (at least in Biden's case) in insecure locations and neither should have held on to because they were not the classifying authority. Am I correct so far? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 12:22:03 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: More like there was communication and coordination between various parts of the executive branch while doing executive functions. I suggest reading the defense motion and various ensuing responses if you want to understand this one much better. I don't think this is a thing, all I've seen is Biden saying he's not going to give Trump classified briefings because he thinks he is a security risk. Not so fast -- read page 4 of this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Remember-this-pic-from-the-FBI-Mar-a-Lago-raid-/5-2724051/&page=4 I know everybody is making the claim, but I want to know the evidence that shows we are looking at the placeholders in that picture and not the actual document covers. Seems reasonable, considering it's dealing with highly sensitive national security stuff, right? There's no claim that they aren't all in the correct boxes, The question is whether they were at Mar-A-Lago, not what order they were in the boxes. Why are you so committed to this fight? After everything that's happened (as you were told it would) you continue to lose what little credibility you possess (which is none btw). You do understand you and your comrades are not helping the DOJ/Dems right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 3:35:55 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By prolapsed_cranium: There's no chain of custody anymore. The evidence has been compromised. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By prolapsed_cranium: Originally Posted By CMiller: I'm obviously talking about what is being argued by the defense in the case right now. If you haven't read the motion and responses you wouldn't understand. They are elevating cherry picking and taking quotes out of context to an art form. There's no chain of custody anymore. The evidence has been compromised. Not really. Mostly problems with the chain of custody go to weight not to whether it would be admitted. Sometimes evidence can be so compromised that it cannot be admitted. We will see with this but my wild speculation is that the evidence would be admitted and a competent lawyer would spend hours and hours on C/X attempting to challenge the verity of the evidence. It's a different question whether the posed pictures with the ZOMG TOP SECRET covers were done and leaked to prejudice the defendant in the press and taint the jury pool. Hint: they were. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 3:41:10 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Why are you so committed to this fight? After everything that's happened (as you were told it would) you continue to lose what little credibility you possess (which is none btw). You do understand you and your comrades are not helping the DOJ/Dems right? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Originally Posted By CMiller: More like there was communication and coordination between various parts of the executive branch while doing executive functions. I suggest reading the defense motion and various ensuing responses if you want to understand this one much better. I don't think this is a thing, all I've seen is Biden saying he's not going to give Trump classified briefings because he thinks he is a security risk. Not so fast -- read page 4 of this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Remember-this-pic-from-the-FBI-Mar-a-Lago-raid-/5-2724051/&page=4 I know everybody is making the claim, but I want to know the evidence that shows we are looking at the placeholders in that picture and not the actual document covers. Seems reasonable, considering it's dealing with highly sensitive national security stuff, right? There's no claim that they aren't all in the correct boxes, The question is whether they were at Mar-A-Lago, not what order they were in the boxes. Why are you so committed to this fight? After everything that's happened (as you were told it would) you continue to lose what little credibility you possess (which is none btw). You do understand you and your comrades are not helping the DOJ/Dems right? 1. I care about the truth, I want to know for myself what's true and what's not regardless of my preferred narratives. (In this case, my preferred narrative is that all of this is just a really bad dream. )2. I think it's a good thing to help people if you can, so when somebody asks if they are understanding things correctly and I think I have information relevant to their question, I try to be helpful and offer what I can. 3. If I have no credibility, then I guess it's a good thing I don't make posts that are based on my credibility. 
|
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
