mspart Posted June 1, 2023 Share Posted June 1, 2023 Apparently a source said that a source said that Trump is on tape with these things. That is a very good line of evidence. I don't doubt that he may have done some such thing, but wait to see if there really is such evidence. Remember, FISA applications were applied for with false information. And the applications were accepted based on false information and American citizens were spied on, based on false information. mspart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parrish Posted June 1, 2023 Author Share Posted June 1, 2023 22 minutes ago, mspart said: Apparently a source said that a source said that Trump is on tape with these things. That is a very good line of evidence. I don't doubt that he may have done some such thing, but wait to see if there really is such evidence. Remember, FISA applications were applied for with false information. And the applications were accepted based on false information and American citizens were spied on, based on false information. mspart If this turns out to be true, it's a slam dunk Espionage Act conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted June 1, 2023 Share Posted June 1, 2023 (edited) In front of a DC jury, looking crosseyed is a slam dunk if you’re Trump or a Trump supporter. on the other hand, the FBI will hide evidence of bribery if you’re a Biden. or help you destroy evidence if you’re a clinton. Edited June 1, 2023 by Offthemat 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted June 1, 2023 Share Posted June 1, 2023 1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said: If this turns out to be true, it's a slam dunk Espionage Act conviction. 1 hour ago, Offthemat said: In front of a DC jury, looking crosseyed is a slam dunk if you’re Trump or a Trump supporter. on the other hand, the FBI will hide evidence of bribery if you’re a Biden. or help you destroy evidence if you’re a clinton. It would seem that both statements have truth with them. mspart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrestlingRasta Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 (edited) Oops Edited June 2, 2023 by WrestlingRasta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 (edited) https://www.oann.com/newsroom/theyre-trying-to-get-trump-article-iii-founder-mike-davis-blasts-the-latest-twist-in-the-trump-classified-document-witch-hunt/ “Presidents are allowed to take their records when they leave office,” said Davis.” “It doesn’t matter what one’s understanding or misunderstanding of the law is,” said Davis. “It matters what the law is. And the law is very clear under the Presidential Records Act that presidents are allowed to take their presidential records when they leave office. And presidential records are any documents created or received by the president or his White House staff.” “President Trump lawfully took his presidential records,” said Davis. “Biden stole Obama’s classified records and stole classified records when he was a senator. That is called espionage.” Edited June 5, 2023 by Offthemat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Another opinion: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2023%2Fjun%2F1%2Fdid-trump-declassify-documents-criminal-indictment%2F ” The bottom line is that if Mr. Trump or his lawyers allege — even without his testifying — that he declassified the documents, a criminal charge of unauthorized possession of classified documents would be difficult to prove. That doesn’t mean that a prosecutor could not get a grand jury to indict this particular ham sandwich. It does mean that it’s unlikely that a conviction against Mr. Trump would be sustainable. The government is certainly aware of these difficulties, so it may be seeking to indict Mr. Trump on some process crime, such as obstruction of justice. But it will be difficult to establish that Mr. Trump crossed the line from vigorously and lawfully defending his conduct to engaging in criminal obstruction. No citizen is required to cooperate in a Department of Justice criminal investigation, as President Biden and others have commendably done. Nor can he actively obstruct such an investigation by unlawful means. The government will have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump willfully crossed this line. Based on what we know, we believe that there is no legitimate basis for a criminal indictment of Mr. Trump based on the material that was found at Mar-a-Lago.” • Alan Dershowitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parrish Posted June 5, 2023 Author Share Posted June 5, 2023 (edited) Dersh and OANN. Wow. It explains quite a bit about why you post the stuff you do. Edited June 5, 2023 by Mike Parrish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmodium Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 2 hours ago, Offthemat said: https://www.oann.com/newsroom/theyre-trying-to-get-trump-article-iii-founder-mike-davis-blasts-the-latest-twist-in-the-trump-classified-document-witch-hunt/ “Presidents are allowed to take their records when they leave office,” said Davis.” “It doesn’t matter what one’s understanding or misunderstanding of the law is,” said Davis. “It matters what the law is. And the law is very clear under the Presidential Records Act that presidents are allowed to take their presidential records when they leave office. And presidential records are any documents created or received by the president or his White House staff.” “President Trump lawfully took his presidential records,” said Davis. “Biden stole Obama’s classified records and stole classified records when he was a senator. That is called espionage.” This person has never read the PRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmodium Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 1 hour ago, Offthemat said: Another opinion: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2023%2Fjun%2F1%2Fdid-trump-declassify-documents-criminal-indictment%2F ” The bottom line is that if Mr. Trump or his lawyers allege — even without his testifying — that he declassified the documents, a criminal charge of unauthorized possession of classified documents would be difficult to prove. That doesn’t mean that a prosecutor could not get a grand jury to indict this particular ham sandwich. It does mean that it’s unlikely that a conviction against Mr. Trump would be sustainable. The government is certainly aware of these difficulties, so it may be seeking to indict Mr. Trump on some process crime, such as obstruction of justice. But it will be difficult to establish that Mr. Trump crossed the line from vigorously and lawfully defending his conduct to engaging in criminal obstruction. No citizen is required to cooperate in a Department of Justice criminal investigation, as President Biden and others have commendably done. Nor can he actively obstruct such an investigation by unlawful means. The government will have a hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump willfully crossed this line. Based on what we know, we believeDersho that there is no legitimate basis for a criminal indictment of Mr. Trump based on the material that was found at Mar-a-Lago.” • Alan Dershowitz Dershowitz is a media lawyer whore. He sold his credibility long ago. The only thing useful here is his admission of not knowing the evidence and acknowledging Biden and Pence cooperated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parrish Posted June 5, 2023 Author Share Posted June 5, 2023 You can almost smell the sweat flop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmodium Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 26 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said: You can almost smell the sweat flop. I'd give that an 'F' on grammar but he is screaming at the top of his lungs so consideration is warranted. Appears he believes charges are pending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parrish Posted June 5, 2023 Author Share Posted June 5, 2023 8 minutes ago, Plasmodium said: I'd give that an 'F' on grammar but he is screaming at the top of his lungs so consideration is warranted. Appears he believes charges are pending. Hide the ketchup. Trump's attorneys seen entering the DoJ this morning for consultations with the special prosecutor's office. "You guys have anything left to say before we proceed?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJB Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 41 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said: You can almost smell the sweat flop. the real problem is he is not wrong... but... but right and wrong is hardly what this is about... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parrish Posted June 5, 2023 Author Share Posted June 5, 2023 1 minute ago, LJB said: the real problem is he is not wrong... but... but right and wrong is hardly what this is about... One person's prosecution doesn't depend on any other person's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJB Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said: One person's prosecution doesn't depend on any other person's. was not my point and you are smart enough to know that... this is not about right and wrong and it never is in this country's playground political wars... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 57 minutes ago, Plasmodium said: I'd give that an 'F' on grammar but he is screaming at the top of his lungs so consideration is warranted. Appears he believes charges are pending. Malicious prosecutions are leading to distrust and democrats are hoping that unrest will elevate to reprisal. They’re in for a surprise and an electoral disaster. The actions of the politicos and those who support them are both insidious and obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parrish Posted June 5, 2023 Author Share Posted June 5, 2023 3 minutes ago, Offthemat said: Malicious prosecutions are leading to distrust and democrats are hoping that unrest will elevate to reprisal. They’re in for a surprise and an electoral disaster. The actions of the politicos and those who support them are both insidious and obvious. MAGAt's, "All prosecutors who even glance at the Great Orange Goblin King are 'malicious'!" His lawyers seem a bit nervous. https://twitter.com/cstrohm/status/1665788587755859968 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said: MAGAt's, "All prosecutors who even glance at the Great Orange Goblin King are 'malicious'!" https://twitter.com/cstrohm/status/1665788587755859968 It seems the same construct is used against Dershowitz. I don't know him or his work, but I believe he is held in high regard for his expertise in these kinds of matters. I don't know that he has been wrong about anything. Maybe he has, but I would think his luster would have diminished if he had been. mspart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parrish Posted June 5, 2023 Author Share Posted June 5, 2023 58 minutes ago, mspart said: It seems the same construct is used against Dershowitz. I don't know him or his work, but I believe he is held in high regard for his expertise in these kinds of matters. I don't know that he has been wrong about anything. Maybe he has, but I would think his luster would have diminished if he had been. mspart You believe wrong. https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/7/30/20746983/alan-dershowitz-jeffrey-epstein-sarah-ransome-giuffre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 VOX.? You’ve got to be kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Well, I have not read the entire article, but it appears I am wrong because he defended a guy like lawyers do. You might as well say John Adams was wrong to defend the Massacre guy and got him acquitted even though he didn't want to take the case. This doesn't say Dershowitz was wrong about anything unless I missed something. Please show me if I missed something. I take it you think he was wrong to defend someone. That doesn't mean he has been wrong on his opinions on legal matters. Apples and hamsters. mspart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parrish Posted June 5, 2023 Author Share Posted June 5, 2023 11 minutes ago, Offthemat said: VOX.? You’ve got to be kidding. So sad for you... https://adfontesmedia.com/vox-bias-and-reliability/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parrish Posted June 5, 2023 Author Share Posted June 5, 2023 Alternatively, put this string into your favorite search engine and read what you like. "alan dershowitz" defends "jeffrey epstein" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Do they make Vox amplifiers too? mspart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Burke Glenbard South, Illinois Class of 2025 Committed to Southwest MN State Projected Weight: 174, 184
Michael Esteban Marist, Illinois Class of 2025 Committed to Michigan State Projected Weight: 133, 141
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now