Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

trump (the former guy, defamer, insurrectionist, and rapist - $83M)

Abandon reality, all ye who enter here. *Democracy*Under*Threat*
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5226

Post by bob »

To steal y'all's favorite joke:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5227

Post by raison de arizona »

They even broke into my safe = despite being served with a valid search warrant, I refused to open my safe.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5228

Post by bob »

I'm going disagree with Elias, as I maintain section 2071 cannot be applied to any federal office listed in the U.S. Constitution.

But don't take my word for it:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3001
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5229

Post by MN-Skeptic »

Popehat has a long tweet on this FBI action.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5230

Post by bob »


I find this plausible.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5231

Post by Kendra »


Lara Trump: Look, my father-in-law, as anybody knows, who's been around him a lot, loves to save things like newspaper clippings, magazine clippings, photographs, documents that he had every authority, will, to take from the white house.
I don't need to suck up bandwidth posting everything so far on this Twitter feed, but he seems to be on the Fox reporting on today's events and worth a look.
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5232

Post by RVInit »

I also believe there is someone at Mar-a-Lago that is cooperating. You can’t swing and miss on something this consequential.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5233

Post by northland10 »

Mr Traitor Pants Jordon wrote:This is what happens in third world countries.

Not the United States.

Doesn’t the FBI have better things to do than harass the former PRESIDENT?
It only happened in the US because we stupidly elected a tin-pot wannabe dictator who thinks rules don't apply to him.

I see Gym is calling him FORMER president. Disloyal.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5234

Post by Gregg »

So my "Out on the fence line with the wieners" opinion...

Trump took the 15 boxes on purpose and somewhere in them is something that is really really pee tape bad. When he got caught, he let them come take the 15 boxes back but before they did he had gotten the really really bad part out and being a dumbass thought that he had got away with it.

Here at the motorcar company pretty much every piece of paper that goes from A to B has an "MDL#" which is "master document list. E mails don't have them but are automatically archived and I couldn't override that if I tried. Ditto for text messages that are in our system or on company phones (Imagine that!) but if I make a spreadsheet, and attach it to an e-mail or in fact if I save it not on my desktop, the system automatically generates an MDL#.

What I'm getting at is anything I do that I decide later was maybe something I want to hide, that's gonna be damn hard to do without at the very least making someone ask where it's at. I'll go further and say if I did something to try to hide a document just me trying would set off so many alarms that I probably ought to start packing my personal effects.

I would like to think that the document control process in the White House is at least as good.

In conclusion, whatever it was, the FBI had reason to believe that not only was it at Mar A Lago, but that it was in fact in his safe. Cause a search warrant probably would not allow them to force open a safe unless it said plainly "this means the safe, behind the picture of hyaenas goring a troop of Girl Scouts and next to the erotic photos of Stephen Miller".

They might get to go "Oh look, a safe" if they're busting a black drug dealer in East LA, but for the former POTUS the warrant probably had to have the first number of the combination and the serial number of the safe.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
Patagoniagirl
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:11 am

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5235

Post by Patagoniagirl »

I dont care if they were looking for what brand of toilet.paper he wipes his ass with. IM HAPPY!
User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3001
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:03 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5236

Post by MN-Skeptic »

Gregg wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 8:52 pm Trump took the 15 boxes on purpose and somewhere in them is something that is really really pee tape bad. When he got caught, he let them come take the 15 boxes back but before they did he had gotten the really really bad part out and being a dumbass thought that he had got away with it.
Expanding on that... I wonder if the situation arose now because Trump, with his need to brag, showed one of those incriminating documents to someone he wanted to impress, and that someone - being a loyal American citizen - reported to the FBI or the DOJ that Trump still had certain documents in his possession.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5237

Post by Gregg »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 8:09 pm Barbra McQuade was ob MSNBC talking about this being related to the documents trump took from the WH, and that just his having such documents may not be enough to indict him. She seemed to want to stress that this may end up not being a big deal depending on what documents he has, and what can be proved about whether he knew they were there and why he had them.

Ken Delanian is reporting the Secret Service was notified of the warrant shortly before the raid and that they helped gain access to the property.
If they are in the safe he ain't gonna be able to say they were just the coffee order receipts.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Shizzle Popped
Posts: 4825
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:53 pm
Location: South of Circle City
Verified:

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5238

Post by Shizzle Popped »

“I barely know those documents. They may have brought me coffee a few times.”
"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."
John Adams
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5239

Post by bob »


Roodles, of course, was too sick to fly. :roll:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5240

Post by Kriselda Gray »

bob wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 8:26 pm I'm going disagree with Elias, as I maintain section 2071 cannot be applied to any federal office listed in the U.S. Constitution.

But don't take my word for it:
Ok, I get it might not apply, but why wouldn't it apply? What was the rationale behind the holding Mike Dunford references? I'm just trying to understand.

Also, just a few minutes ago, Harry Littman, an attorney, was on MSNBC saying he thinks it's possible the DOJ may almost be looking at that provision of 2071 as a way of resolving what to do about Trump. He suggests that they might opt to go after him on this documents issue and get him banned from ever holding office again and let it end there, rather than trying for more difficult charges.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5241

Post by Gregg »

No no no no!

If they try and convict him for stealing a memo about how to serve his diet coke, it would be worse than just letting him go. The Army of the Stupid will go Knucking Phutz.

Either try him for Seditious Conspiracy or not, but he ain't Al Capone. Tax Evasion ain't gonna cut it.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5242

Post by bob »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:04 pmOk, I get it might not apply, but why wouldn't it apply? What was the rationale behind the holding Mike Dunford references? I'm just trying to understand.
Thornton struck down a law imposing term limits on federal legistlators. The rationale being, because the U.S. Constitution sets the eligibility requirements for federal legislators, a law is insufficient; a constitutional amendment is required.

So (Mike D. and I conclude) a law can't ban the president from serving; only an amendment can do that. (Cf. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, sec. 3.)
Edit: Type-O. :bag:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5243

Post by Kriselda Gray »

bob wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:10 pm
Kriselda Gray wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:04 pmOk, I get it might not apply, but why wouldn't it apply? What was the rationale behind the holding Mike Dunford references? I'm just trying to understand.
Thorton struck down a law imposing term limits on federal legistlators. The rationale being, because the U.S. Constitution sets the eligibility requirements for federal legislators, a law is insufficient; a constitutional amendment is required.

So (Mike D. and I conclude) a law can't ban the president from serving; only an amendment can do that. (Cf. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, sec. 3.)
Thank you!
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5244

Post by raison de arizona »

Hannity has Eric Trump on. He’s pushing the same line as Lara Trump, namely ask the docs were his personal news clippings and whatnot. They are attacking tfg “because he is Biden’s greatest threat.” Political persecution. They say.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
SuzieC
Posts: 925
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am
Location: Blue oasis in red state
Occupation: retired lawyer; yoga enthusiast
Verified:

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5245

Post by SuzieC »

This is really, really astonishing. What could the classified documents be that are so bad that a federal judge would authorize a search warrant, which shows urgency to the situation?
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5246

Post by Kendra »

raison de arizona wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:20 pm Hannity has Eric Trump on. He’s pushing the same line as Lara Trump, namely ask the docs were his personal news clippings and whatnot. They are attacking tfg “because he is Biden’s greatest threat.” Political persecution. They say.
Yeah, he even dragged out Benghazi and Uranium One, the BUT HER EMAILS!!!! wasn't enough. I think I heard Newt Gingrich is weighing in shortly :roll:
humblescribe
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:42 pm
Occupation: Dude
Verified:

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5247

Post by humblescribe »

Maybe. . .just maybe. . .this has to do with the fact that the FBI finally has a lead on Jimmy Hoffa, and not all this other stuff. :lol:

(In case you think that I am serious, think again.)
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." O. Wilde
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5248

Post by Suranis »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 8:09 pm Ken Delanian is reporting the Secret Service was notified of the warrant shortly before the raid and that they helped gain access to the property.
You mean the secret Service were....... DISLOYAL???

Don the Con will probably try to get rid of them now that they have shown disloyalty to his Rotund Immenseness.
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5249

Post by bob »

SuzieC wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:27 pm This is really, really astonishing. What could the classified documents be that are so bad that a federal judge would authorize a search warrant, which shows urgency to the situation?
This is the $64 question:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: trump (the former guy)

#5250

Post by raison de arizona »

Gingrich was boring. McEnany was more animated. Note on to Huckabee. Hannity’s position appears to be that tfg didn’t pack the boxes himself, therefore the search warrant was invalid.
:roll:
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Post Reply

Return to “The Big Lie & Aftermath of The Former Guy”