WrestlingRasta Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 53 minutes ago, Paul158 said: I am aware of everything that led up to the FBI's visits. I'm just extremely disappointed in the way the DOJ handled both of these cases. I'm disappointed in President Trump and his lawyers for their poor judgement in handling this matter. I'm surprised that President Biden could have so many documents in his house, at U Penn office and the beach house for decades. Documents that a senator or vice president are not allowed to have outside of the SKIF, little alone take them home. I'm very curious about the material or documents in the 1850 boxes Joe gave to the University of Delaware University. The boxes are not allowed to be opened until 2 years after his death. I don’t know what all those new buttons are supposed to mean so….. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 Notwithstanding the claims of the low information posters, the FBI agents were ordered to not wear any identifying insignia, to carry their weapons concealed, wear polo style shirts or similar plainclothes, not to carry their badges. How do you identify yourself as law enforcement without your badge? We can be thankful that level heads prevailed, somewhat. FBI members balked at the raid from the time they were first informed of the plan. It took several months for Garland’s demands, undoubtedly initiated by the White House, to be carried out. Time, during which no efforts were being made to retrieve any documents. Time, that may have been the difference in whether the Trumps were present at the time of the raid. God works in mysterious ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 14 minutes ago, Offthemat said: Notwithstanding the claims of the low information posters, the FBI agents were ordered to not wear any identifying insignia, to carry their weapons concealed, wear polo style shirts or similar plainclothes, not to carry their badges. How do you identify yourself as law enforcement without your badge? We can be thankful that level heads prevailed, somewhat. FBI members balked at the raid from the time they were first informed of the plan. It took several months for Garland’s demands, undoubtedly initiated by the White House, to be carried out. Time, during which no efforts were being made to retrieve any documents. Time, that may have been the difference in whether the Trumps were present at the time of the raid. God works in mysterious ways. It’s almost as if the FBI coordinated with the secret service to do the raid when trump wasn’t there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/unbelievably-criminal-outrage-as-obama-era-memo-suggests-feds-may-have-had-copies-of-documents-seized-from-trump-in-mar-a-lago-raid/ar-BB1mXIXb?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=5a3f865fda374f40871aac94b590099f&ei=50 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestleknownothing Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 4 hours ago, JimmyBT said: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/unbelievably-criminal-outrage-as-obama-era-memo-suggests-feds-may-have-had-copies-of-documents-seized-from-trump-in-mar-a-lago-raid/ar-BB1mXIXb?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=5a3f865fda374f40871aac94b590099f&ei=50 I do not think this case hinges on whether the documents were originals or copies. It hinges on the information contained in the documents. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said: I do not think this case hinges on whether the documents were originals or copies. It hinges on the information contained in the documents. Show me where I said it would. Someone should actually read the article. Edited May 24 by JimmyBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestleknownothing Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 7 minutes ago, JimmyBT said: Show me where I said it would. Someone should actually read the article. You must have been looking in the mirror when you typed your response: From the article you clearly did not read: Were documents found at Mar-a-Lago already preserved? The general counsel noted having multiple discussions with officials from the White House Office of Records Management about their "concerns" over Trump's retention of the documents, as reported by Real Clear Investigations. The Archives' insistence on Trump handing over the records seems partly due to NARA's mission to "properly" preserve "a complete set of Presidential records," as stated on February 7, 2022. However, if the government already had access to the documents via the Obama-era program, then the documents would presumably be preserved already. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said: You must have been looking in the mirror when you typed your response: From the article you clearly did not read: Were documents found at Mar-a-Lago already preserved? The general counsel noted having multiple discussions with officials from the White House Office of Records Management about their "concerns" over Trump's retention of the documents, as reported by Real Clear Investigations. The Archives' insistence on Trump handing over the records seems partly due to NARA's mission to "properly" preserve "a complete set of Presidential records," as stated on February 7, 2022. However, if the government already had access to the documents via the Obama-era program, then the documents would presumably be preserved already. You’re telling me nothing I don’t already know. Good try though. Now cover the part of the article you ignored. Never ASSume. Edited May 25 by JimmyBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestleknownothing Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 3 minutes ago, JimmyBT said: You’re telling me nothing I don’t already know. Good try though. Now cover the part of the article you ignored. Just when I think you can't get any more obtuse, you top yourself. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said: Just when I think you can't get any more obtuse, you top yourself. Because you assumed my intent from posting an article. Got it. If only the title of this thread had something to do with the article. Obtuse must be your middle name. Edited May 25 by JimmyBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestleknownothing Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 15 minutes ago, JimmyBT said: Because you assumed my intent from posting an article. Got it. If only the title of this thread had something to do with the article. Obtuse must be your middle name. So dumb. Carry on. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said: So dumb. Carry on. Yep. ASSuming the intent of an article is “so dumb” you could be the poster child for reading an article and only using the info that fits your narrative. Carry on indeed. Edited May 25 by JimmyBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestleknownothing Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 20 minutes ago, JimmyBT said: Yep. ASSuming the intent of an article is “so dumb” you could be the poster child for reading an article and only using the info that fits your narrative. Carry on indeed. Rather than posting an article without comment and then claim you did not endorse what was in the article, try forming an original thought and then post that. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 11 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said: Rather than posting an article without comment and then claim you did not endorse what was in the article, try forming an original thought and then post that. Where did I claim I didn’t endorse the article?????? How about you read the article and try to focus on things that don’t fit your narrative. Face it. You assumed I had an agenda by posting the article and “tried” to jump all over me for what you “thought” it was. I’ll continue to post how I want to post and let clowns like you ASSume you’re right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 2 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said: I do not think this case hinges on whether the documents were originals or copies. It hinges on the information contained in the documents. Most of the hinges in the case, so far, are the lies the prosecution has told the judge. An intriguing hinge will be when Jack Smith has to prove he has legitimate authority to prosecute the case. I would have thought they’d have established that first, but this is being run by the gov’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockLobster Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 On 5/23/2024 at 3:11 AM, Threadkilla said: The operative word is necessary. No, it's not. The operative phrase is "cleared to use" - that's the one we're talking about. Catch up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockLobster Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 (edited) 3 hours ago, JimmyBT said: Where did I claim I didn’t endorse the article?????? Clown posts idiotic article without comment. Now tries to refute if clown endorses or not. Oh I get it now. JimmyBT just makes no sense at all 24/7 Edited May 25 by RockLobster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 7 hours ago, RockLobster said: Clown posts idiotic article without comment. Now tries to refute if clown endorses or not. Oh I get it now. JimmyBT just makes no sense at all 24/7 7 hours ago, RockLobster said: Clown posts idiotic article without comment. Now tries to refute if clown endorses or not. Oh I get it now. JimmyBT just makes no sense at all 24/7 Clown complains about someone that posted an article about the topic of the thread. Chimes in yet still can’t show where it was endorsed or not. You get it all right. oh and How will I ever sleep knowing you think I make no sense? Bahahhahahahahahahahha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestleknownothing Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 11 hours ago, JimmyBT said: Where did I claim I didn’t endorse the article?????? How about you read the article and try to focus on things that don’t fit your narrative. Face it. You assumed I had an agenda by posting the article and “tried” to jump all over me for what you “thought” it was. I’ll continue to post how I want to post and let clowns like you ASSume you’re right. Don't be afraid. It is OK to form an original thought. It may hurt at first, but soon you will get used to it. Thinking for yourself can be liberating. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted May 25 Share Posted May 25 1 minute ago, Wrestleknownothing said: Don't be afraid. It is OK to form an original thought. It may hurt at first, but soon you will get used to it. Thinking for yourself can be liberating. Your original thoughts are whining about wrestling coaches that tweet about a new commit coming soon. You’re all over originality. Hahahahhahahah. Still waiting for you to tell me where I did or didn’t endorse the article like you claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestleknownothing Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) On 5/25/2024 at 7:28 AM, JimmyBT said: Your original thoughts are whining about wrestling coaches that tweet about a new commit coming soon. You’re all over originality. Hahahahhahahah. Still waiting for you to tell me where I did or didn’t endorse the article like you claim. You posted a dumb article making a dumb claim. Own up to it. Edited May 27 by Wrestleknownothing Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 22 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said: You posted a dumb article making a dumb claim. Own up to it. What claim?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestleknownothing Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 9 hours ago, JimmyBT said: What claim?????? Scroll up. You still haven't said why you posted this garbage article, full of grammatical errors, logical errors, and faulty reasoning from an Indian "news" site. I told you what was wrong with it. You implied there was something right. So what is it? Author's note: I do not expect a straight answer. Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said: Scroll up. You still haven't said why you posted this garbage article, full of grammatical errors, logical errors, and faulty reasoning from an Indian "news" site. I told you what was wrong with it. You implied there was something right. So what is it? Author's note: I do not expect a straight answer. I made no claim. Pretty simple and a fact. You’re telling me to make a claim while also saying I made a claim. Dumb bug bit you more than once. Edited May 28 by JimmyBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreePointTakedown Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 On 5/23/2024 at 4:38 PM, Paul158 said: You are sadly misinformed. But ok. I think everyone on here knows what they are and how they are used. We also know that the sitting President had the very same violations (but worse) with classified documents for decades and the DOJ or FBI made an appointment to come and get them. But it is worse. He was only a senator and a vice president when he just happened to steal them. He had them for decades. Now he is to old and feeble to prosecute. On 5/23/2024 at 4:13 PM, ThreePointTakedown said: Do you have any documentation or no? Because I've seen and read a few things that say its pretty standard language on the warrant. Do you agree? Should 45 be treated differently when suspected of breaking the law? Why or why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Zaltsman St. John Vianney, New Jersey Class of 2025 Committed to Lock Haven Projected Weight: 141, 149
Patrick O'Keefe St. John Vianney, New Jersey Class of 2025 Committed to Lock Haven 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