Apply Now!

The Trump Card...

muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
ATeam said:
Yes, yes, yes; you keep making the same point over and over and over again. But if Trump can't prove it in court, it isn't true. And so far, Trump has not tried to prove it in court. Indeed, so far, he has avoided the question as best he can. But time is running out and DOJ will force him to answer one way or another soon.

You keep making the same unproven point. I keep providing updates on our progress toward an answer.
Click to expand...
Joe Biden wasn’t President until January 20, 2021 around noon. Before that, Trump was President. He was President after the election, and for two weeks after Jan 6. During that time, he had the constitutional power to declassify what he wanted.
Also, disobeying Trump’s declassification order was being derelict in their duty and subject to sanctions:
1B40C8D1-716B-401E-A956-3E444F2C37C4.jpeg710BBEE5-C9C1-40D9-8BBD-5E7E300D5887.jpeg
Trump is on to their game.

www.americanthinker.com

The DoJ Argues that the Intelligence Community Overrides the Judiciary

At this point in time I have no regard for the probity or competence of the Intelligence Community and neither, apparently, does Judge Aileen Cannon, who earlier this week ordered the appointment of a Special Master to review those documents seized i...
www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: danthewolf00, RLENT and Ragman
Ragman

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
muttly said:
Joe Biden wasn’t President until January 20, 2021 around noon. Before that, Trump was President. He was President after the election, and for two weeks after Jan 6. During that time, he had the constitutional power to declassify what he wanted.
Also, disobeying Trump’s declassification order was being derelict in their duty and subject to sanctions:
View attachment 21974View attachment 21975
Trump is on to their game.

www.americanthinker.com

The DoJ Argues that the Intelligence Community Overrides the Judiciary

At this point in time I have no regard for the probity or competence of the Intelligence Community and neither, apparently, does Judge Aileen Cannon, who earlier this week ordered the appointment of a Special Master to review those documents seized i...
www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com
Click to expand...
#udder nonsense
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: danthewolf00 and RLENT
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin has announced that the Committee will be investigating unethical conduct in The Orange Moron's Justice Department under fat toady Coverup General Billy Barr.

Seems that Geoffrey Berman - the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York - is singing about Barr's (and others at Main Justice) unethical attempts to Big Foot certain investigations.

:clapping-happy:

:tearsofjoy:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: muttly, danthewolf00 and Ragman
muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
RLENT said:
Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin has announced that the Committee will be investigating unethical conduct in The Orange Moron's Justice Department under fat toady Coverup General Billy Barr.

Seems that Geoffrey Berman - the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York - is singing about Barr's (and others at Main Justice) unethical attempts to Big Foot certain investigations.

:clapping-happy:

:tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...

935E2183-E300-4911-9B62-8E181665D957.gif
 

Attachments

  • 955C9E00-62D5-40D6-900B-4835908836C6.jpeg
    955C9E00-62D5-40D6-900B-4835908836C6.jpeg
    430.5 KB · Views: 6
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and danthewolf00
muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and danthewolf00
C

coalminer

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
danthewolf00 said:
Same way Hillary Clinton did.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree, I would love to see her locked up but the difference between her and Trump is that they caught him with the evidence and since he likes to run his mouth they were led right to it. Clinton at least followed the golden rule, keep your mouth shut, thats one thing Trump could have learned from her.
 
D

danthewolf00

Veteran Expediter
Maybe if the Democrats wouldn't quite so over board with the attack on trump all the time they might be believed that trump did something wrong....but they lie so much and are not the least bit transparent.
 
C

coalminer

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
danthewolf00 said:
Hillary is a lawyer......trump is not.
Click to expand...
Well Trump has enough lawyers, he just thinks he is smarter than they are and he does not have to listen to them.

If Trump walked up to me and gave me advice on how to complete a real estate transaction, I would listen because that is his specialty. Why cant he listen to other people who are experts in their fields?
 
D

danthewolf00

Veteran Expediter
coalminer said:
Well Trump has enough lawyers, he just thinks he is smarter than they are and he does not have to listen to them.

If Trump walked up to me and gave me advice on how to complete a real estate transaction, I would listen because that is his specialty. Why cant he listen to other people who are experts in their fields?
Click to expand...
Don't know.....
 
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
ATeam said:
Just as it is unwise to believe the police, or the Justice Department, is always right and their motives are always pure. it is unwise to believe they are always wrong and their motives are always corrupt.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree. But their history with Trump, just like that serial cheating spouse, it gets to a point where you cannot trust them, and any current and future trust must be earned anew. The unprecedented action of raiding a former president's home, and the subsequent leaks to the press, do not engender trust, and therefore should be viewed with skepticism.

I and many others have long said, if Trump did something wrong, fine, charge him and try the case in court. Over the past 6+ years countless people at the local, state and federal level have made it their sole mission to try and get Trump, and and even after making stuff up, fabricating evidence, and attempting to criminalize political opinion, they still can't find anything that passes the smell test of selective prosecution and rank hypocrisy.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: danthewolf00 and RLENT
ATeam

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Turtle said:
Oh, I agree. But their history with Trump, just like that serial cheating spouse, it gets to a point where you cannot trust them, and any current and future trust must be earned anew.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you're open to the possibility of earning trust anew.
Turtle said:
The unprecedented action of raiding a former president's home,
Click to expand...
The search was indeed unprecedented. A huge line crossed. I was quite surprised to learn DOJ sent agents to search Trump's home.
Turtle said:
and the subsequent leaks to the press, do not engender trust, and therefore should be viewed with skepticism.
Click to expand...
I view the search and the leaks as separate. The search was legal. DOJ, knowing the actions would be world-rocking and subject them to intense scrutiny, took steps to make sure everything they did passed muster. But the leaks -- people speaking off the record or without being named -- is bad. Such leaks strain credulity among skeptical readers and contribute to the negative bias toward the news outlets who do such reporting. More harmful is how such leaks undermine the dignity and authority of DOJ. I hate leaks. They do more harm than good.

I understand how they happen. When my wife and I were politically involved at a high level, it frequently happened that reporters or plants from the opposite side of whatever we were advocating at the time would flatter us, warm up to us, become increasingly acquainted with us, etc. They did it to get us to drop our guard and let info out that would not otherwise be known. These people are very good at that game. They know how to play on a person's ego and win their trust.

The other kind of leak is the intentional one where someone on staff is "not authorized to discuss ..." but is somehow intentionally sent to the press to get something out there that cannot otherwise be properly announced, or may be leaked for strategic reasons. I hate those kind of leaks too. It's hard to verify if (1) the leak is intentional, (2) the leak is accidental, made by someone who is careless with info that should be kept to one's self, or (3) false, made up by a reporter and represented as a leak because this bad-faith reporter wants to make news or have an impact of some sort.

None of them are good. I hate leaks.
Turtle said:
I and many others have long said, if Trump did something wrong, fine, charge him and try the case in court. Over the past 6+ years countless people at the local, state and federal level have made it their sole mission to try and get Trump, and and even after making stuff up, fabricating evidence, and attempting to criminalize political opinion, they still can't find anything that passes the smell test of selective prosecution and rank hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
You are not 100% wrong on that but not 100% right either.

Remember the Matt Gaetz news of his alleged sex with minors? Nothing came of that and if they were going to charge him, they would have done so by now, I would think. I don't like that guy at all but what happened to him was grossly unfair and unsubstantiated.

Some of the stuff said about Trump may be of the same ilk. But three grand juries are now conducting probes into Trump's conduct and legitimate investigations are underway. Charges may well result from one or more of these. And I agree with what you say; "... if Trump did something wring, fine. Charge him and try the case in court."

Grand jury investigations are different than media smears. They may very well be on their way to charging him and trying him in court.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: muttly, RLENT and danthewolf00
D

danthewolf00

Veteran Expediter
ATeam said:
I'm glad you're open to the possibility of earning trust anew.

The search was indeed unprecedented. A huge line crossed. I was quite surprised to learn DOJ sent agents to search Trump's home.

I view the search and the leaks as separate. The search was legal. DOJ, knowing the actions would be world-rocking and subject them to intense scrutiny, took steps to make sure everything they did passed muster. But the leaks -- people speaking off the record or without being named -- is bad. Such leaks strain credulity among skeptical readers and contribute to the negative bias toward the news outlets who do such reporting. More harmful is how such leaks undermine the dignity and authority of DOJ. I hate leaks. They do more harm than good.

I understand how they happen. When my wife and I were politically involved at a high level, it frequently happened that reporters or plants from the opposite side of whatever we were advocating at the time would flatter us, warm up to us, become increasingly acquainted with us, etc. They did it to get us to drop our guard and let info out that would not otherwise be known. These people are very good at that game. They know how to play on a person's ego and win their trust.

The other kind of leak is the intentional one where someone on staff is "not authorized to discuss ..." but is somehow intentionally sent to the press to get something out there that cannot otherwise be properly announced, or may be leaked for strategic reasons. I hate those kind of leaks too. It's hard to verify if (1) the leak is intentional, (2) the leak is accidental, made by someone who is careless with info that should be kept to one's self, or (3) false, made up by a reporter and represented as a leak because this bad-faith reporter wants to make news or have an impact of some sort.

None of them are good. I hate leaks.

You are not 100% wrong on that but not 100% right either.

Remember the Matt Gaetz news of his alleged sex with minors? Nothing came of that and if they were going to charge him, they would have done so by now, I would think. I don't like that guy at all but what happened to him was grossly unfair and unsubstantiated.

Some of the stuff said about Trump may be of the same ilk. But three grand juries are now conducting probes into Trump's conduct and legitimate investigations are underway. Charges may well result from one or more of these. And I agree with what you say; "... if Trump did something wring, fine. Charge him and try the case in court."
Click to expand...
Matt gaetz and his family was blackmailed by a man who wanted alot of money and used that lie about matt.....he got alot of jail time for his crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top