Offthemat Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 18 minutes ago, ionel said: Loser vacates the boards for a year, @BobDole verifies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul158 Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 1 hour ago, Offthemat said: Does this mean we are going to lose Redviking for a year? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockLobster Posted July 15 Share Posted July 15 (edited) The classified documents case will be back. Why? Because he is obviously guilty. Those documents, classified or not, didn't belong to him. They were (and are) property of the federal government. Ex-presidents have zero right to claim them as their own. They requested he return them multiple times - Trump denied, and went so far as to lie to his lawyers that they had all been returned. When the feds got a search warrant, they found he had illegally retained them - and that there were classified documents among the boxes they discovered. Had he simply returned them, it would likely not have become a problem at all. He effectively stole documents, hid them, and lied about it. Vak already covered this in detail back when it was a current event. Edited July 15 by RockLobster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockLobster Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 ... further, here's a YouTube video from FOX News with Republican Bill Barr that explains it in simple terms. Trump is simply guilty in this particular case. That's not to say Trump is necessarily guilty of any other charges in other cases. He may well be innocent of charges in other cases that have yet to be tried. This also has nothing to do with Hunter Biden or any of the other weird things people try to link to this. This is simply a case where Trump is guilty. I have to wonder if anyone who doesn't see this is just not capable of being honest with themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted July 16 Author Share Posted July 16 1 hour ago, Paul158 said: Does this mean we are going to lose Redviking for a year? Man I hope so. He’s a clown. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le duke Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 Aileen Cannon has been curb stomped by the 11th every time Jack Smith appeals. Her logic here is non-existent.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 39 minutes ago, Le duke said: Aileen Cannon has been curb stomped by the 11th every time Jack Smith appeals. Her logic here is non-existent. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk What is non-existent is Constitutionally mandated Congressional authorization to appoint a special counsel sans Senate Advice and Consent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul158 Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Offthemat said: What is non-existent is Constitutionally mandated Congressional authorization to appoint a special counsel sans Senate Advice and Consent. Looks like the AG and the DOJ missed that tiny little fact when they appointed Smith. How will the 11th be able to override that factual part of the law? Edited July 16 by Paul158 missed a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red viking Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 18 hours ago, ionel said: and you are willing to bet how much? If it can legally be appealed, and is, and you have an objective judge(s), then whatever you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red viking Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 This is the epitome of a conflict of interest. What we have here is a corrupt, right-wing judge that was appointed by Trump and is now making a ruling on his criminal activities. It doesn't get any worse than that. It also had nothing to do with the merits of the case, so this will either be appealed successfully or re-filed. Trump is a criminal and will eventually go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 It is the equivalent of “no standing” only against the prosecutor. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 5 hours ago, Paul158 said: Looks like the AG and the DOJ missed that tiny little fact when they appointed Smith. How will the 11th be able to override that factual part of the law? I don’t think they can with a straight face. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrestlingRasta Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 I love when the current news cycle makes us all legal scholars on anonymous social media. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 5 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: I love when the current news cycle makes us all legal scholars on anonymous social media. I love it when lawyers start talking geometry. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red viking Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 17 hours ago, Offthemat said: I don’t think they can with a straight face. DOJ has been operating under the same guidelines and laws for 25 years now re: special counsels. How interesting that a Trump-appointed judge now says it is illegal on the day of Trump's nomination. Great timing. This was a slam dunk case and Trump's only hope was to get it thrown out on a technicality. The merits of the case were slam-dunk and everybody in this country should be disappointed in how this has gone. Anybody responsible for a crime should be held accountable. Nothing to see here....move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headshuck Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Are we talking about Alec Baldwin’s case now? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 9 minutes ago, headshuck said: Are we talking about Alec Baldwin’s case now? Sounds like it, I mean we've seen bigger thread hijacks. 17 minutes ago, red viking said: Anybody responsible for a crime should be held accountable. But if presumed innocent till proven guilty then how do we know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red viking Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ionel said: Sounds like it, I mean we've seen bigger thread hijacks. But if presumed innocent till proven guilty then how do we know? The evidence is extremely strong. If this is decided based upon the facts presented thus far (and not how the prosecutor was appointed) and the decider (judge or jury) was even somewhat objective, he gets more felony counts stacked on his already impressive felony record. Edited July 17 by red viking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red viking Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 The guy held on to classified documents at his home, 1.5 years after he was out of office, and despite repeated requests for him to return the documents. FBI raided his palace and found them. Doesn't get much more of a slam dunk than that. However, we live in a Banana Republic where the elite don't get held accountable for their crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Just now, red viking said: The guy held on to classified documents at his home, 1.5 years after he was out of office, and despite repeated requests for him to return the documents. FBI raided his palace and found them. Doesn't get much more of a slam dunk than that. However, we live in a Banana Republic where the elite don't get held accountable for their crimes. Isn't faking an assassination a crime? Why don't we get him for that one. Some folks on here have the evidence, its a more current crime so should be an easier slam dunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headshuck Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 He’s been colluding with the Russians for what seems like forever too. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red viking Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 4 minutes ago, ionel said: Isn't faking an assassination a crime? Why don't we get him for that one. Some folks on here have the evidence, its a more current crime so should be an easier slam dunk. I don't see much evidence for that personally, but I wouldn't put it past the GOP, in general, to do whatever it takes to win. I have to give your party credit. You are incredibly resourceful, organized and are willing to any level to win. Shows a lot of determination and drive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul158 Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 44 minutes ago, red viking said: DOJ has been operating under the same guidelines and laws for 25 years now re: special counsels. How interesting that a Trump-appointed judge now says it is illegal on the day of Trump's nomination. Great timing. This was a slam dunk case and Trump's only hope was to get it thrown out on a technicality. The merits of the case were slam-dunk and everybody in this country should be disappointed in how this has gone. Anybody responsible for a crime should be held accountable. Nothing to see here....move along. Last sentence. It doesn't apply if you are old and feeble. It doesn't apply if you are a nice likeable guy and have a poor memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbrog Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 10 minutes ago, red viking said: I don't see much evidence for that personally, but I wouldn't put it past the GOP, in general, to do whatever it takes to win. I have to give your party credit. You are incredibly resourceful, organized and are willing to any level to win. Shows a lot of determination and drive. LOL....so you are saying the Dems aren't incredibly resourceful, organized and will do anything to win?? Here's a hint...both sides are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red viking Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 3 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: LOL....so you are saying the Dems aren't incredibly resourceful, organized and will do anything to win?? Here's a hint...both sides are. Not as dedicated to winning as the Republicans. Republicans will do WHATEVER it takes. Democrats will only go so far. I actually wish they could match the aggressiveness, political savvy and cut-throat style of the Republicans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Stevens Iowa-Grant/Highland, Wisconsin Class of 2026 Committed to Wisconsin Projected Weight: 141, 149
Griffin LaPlante St. Francis, New York Class of 2026 Committed to North Carolina State Projected Weight: 174
Dom Deputy Chestnut Ridge, Pennsylvania Class of 2026 Committed to North Carolina State Projected Weight: 125
Brandon Carr Sun Valley, Pennsylvania Class of 2025 Committed to Franklin & Marshall Projected Weight: 184, 197
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