User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 9:16:23 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bhart89: Our government is unelected, answers to foreigners, circumvents our constitution and hates our citizens. Bloody fookin' hell 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 9:31:56 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... All true. No professional can look at this raid and think it was done in accord with any standard evidentiary procedure. So then can we expect to see various government witnesses on the stand testifying as to why they did what they did? I just don't understand this idea that: A is known . . . . . Obviously now Z is known, let's all react to Z! Why is the most obvious course of action to assume everything between A and Z instead of waiting to see what the process, with which I assume you are quite familiar, the process that is our best effort at determining The Truth, produces? I know it's SOP for The Internet in general, I'm just a bit surprised at what I see coming from people who claim to actually understand the system. As far as I can tell I'm the only person in these threads who's actually scanning through hundreds of pages of various documents trying to find relevant information. It's kinda disappointing. Anyway, I'm going back to work. You should be free of my annoyance the rest of the day.  ETA: I just scanned through the indictment again to make sure I didn't miss something, and wow--the difference between the story it tells and what everybody thinks happened is like night and day. Also, I missed this detail that came out a few months ago--did you know that there was a room that Trump put a lock on literally while federal agents were in the building receiving classified documents from his attorney? When they were doing the raid and they found that room locked, they were told there was nothing inside and they moved on and never entered it. They also missed a room in Trump's bedroom that had an entrance hidden behind a piece of furniture.  To be clear, those are allegations. An indictment is an allegation or set of allegations based on the most prejudicial premises and attestations which have not been subject to the crucible of trial and cross examination. Sometimes those premises and attestations turn out to be complete crap. You know, like sometimes people swear to stuff they know is false so they can spy on a campaign, or go forward on novel untested theories because they hate an orange dude. Not sure what you're saying with the a to z thing. I would say that everyone can use circumstantial evidence. In most courts circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence. Sometimes it's better. DNA vs. eyewitness? I'll generally take DNA. Oh hey, you never did disclose your trusted legal analysts. What did they day about the Colorado/Trump ballot case? What did they say about Trump/Russia? What did they believe about the FISA court being subverted to spy on a party opponent? The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. I understand the process. You should think about what has leaked, how in got the media attention, and why that matters in this context. But you want to shift focus to the selected premises in the indictment. OK. You do that. We'll see how much gets proven. That they felt the need to release a staged photograph with pre-printed labels tells me, an experienced litigator, a lot about their ethics, confidence in their case, or both. What do you think has come out in court? Has there been a trial I missed? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:04:38 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: I understand the process. You should think about what has leaked, how in got the media attention, and why that matters in this context. But you want to shift focus to the selected premises in the indictment. OK. You do that. We'll see how much gets proven. That they felt the need to release a staged photograph with pre-printed labels tells me, an experienced litigator, a lot about their ethics, confidence in their case, or both. What do you think has come out in court? Has there been a trial I missed? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... All true. No professional can look at this raid and think it was done in accord with any standard evidentiary procedure. So then can we expect to see various government witnesses on the stand testifying as to why they did what they did? I just don't understand this idea that: A is known . . . . . Obviously now Z is known, let's all react to Z! Why is the most obvious course of action to assume everything between A and Z instead of waiting to see what the process, with which I assume you are quite familiar, the process that is our best effort at determining The Truth, produces? I know it's SOP for The Internet in general, I'm just a bit surprised at what I see coming from people who claim to actually understand the system. As far as I can tell I'm the only person in these threads who's actually scanning through hundreds of pages of various documents trying to find relevant information. It's kinda disappointing. Anyway, I'm going back to work. You should be free of my annoyance the rest of the day. ETA: I just scanned through the indictment again to make sure I didn't miss something, and wow--the difference between the story it tells and what everybody thinks happened is like night and day. Also, I missed this detail that came out a few months ago--did you know that there was a room that Trump put a lock on literally while federal agents were in the building receiving classified documents from his attorney? When they were doing the raid and they found that room locked, they were told there was nothing inside and they moved on and never entered it. They also missed a room in Trump's bedroom that had an entrance hidden behind a piece of furniture. To be clear, those are allegations. An indictment is an allegation or set of allegations based on the most prejudicial premises and attestations which have not been subject to the crucible of trial and cross examination. Sometimes those premises and attestations turn out to be complete crap. You know, like sometimes people swear to stuff they know is false so they can spy on a campaign, or go forward on novel untested theories because they hate an orange dude. Not sure what you're saying with the a to z thing. I would say that everyone can use circumstantial evidence. In most courts circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence. Sometimes it's better. DNA vs. eyewitness? I'll generally take DNA. Oh hey, you never did disclose your trusted legal analysts. What did they day about the Colorado/Trump ballot case? What did they say about Trump/Russia? What did they believe about the FISA court being subverted to spy on a party opponent? The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. I understand the process. You should think about what has leaked, how in got the media attention, and why that matters in this context. But you want to shift focus to the selected premises in the indictment. OK. You do that. We'll see how much gets proven. That they felt the need to release a staged photograph with pre-printed labels tells me, an experienced litigator, a lot about their ethics, confidence in their case, or both. What do you think has come out in court? Has there been a trial I missed? I'm trying not to repeat myself and irritate people more than I already have, but maybe I can frame it this way. For people like us, there are really are only two primary sources of relevant information on these topics. One is the media, reporting from a variety of sources. I'm happy to ignore that for this conversation, other than using them as a way to link through to original sources. The other source is court filings from the government. That's the one I want to focus on. To avoid the obvious and useless distraction, I will stipulate that the government is not 100% trustworthy. I will also stipulate that the government's motives are at the very least suspect, or may also be wrong or even nefarious. The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%? My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:08:53 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm trying not to repeat myself and irritate people more than I already have, but maybe I can frame it this way. For people like us, there are really are only two primary sources of relevant information on these topics. One is the media, reporting from a variety of sources. I'm happy to ignore that for this conversation, other than using them as a way to link through to original sources. The other source is court filings from the government. That's the one I want to focus on. To avoid the obvious and useless distraction, I will stipulate that the government is not 100% trustworthy. I will also stipulate that the government's motives are at the very least suspect, or may also be wrong or even nefarious. The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%? My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:10:13 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. You guys notice any regional speech patterns? |
|
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:19:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JCoop: I'm thinking CMiller is from either of the coasts or somewhere liberal upper midwest, probably Minneapolis. Or possibly Austin, San Francisco, or NYC. You guys notice any regional speech patterns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:23:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kingdead]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm trying not to repeat myself and irritate people more than I already have, but maybe I can frame it this way. For people like us, there are really are only two primary sources of relevant information on these topics. One is the media, reporting from a variety of sources. I'm happy to ignore that for this conversation, other than using them as a way to link through to original sources. The other source is court filings from the government. That's the one I want to focus on. To avoid the obvious and useless distraction, I will stipulate that the government is not 100% trustworthy. I will also stipulate that the government's motives are at the very least suspect, or may also be wrong or even nefarious. The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%? My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this.  ABC News Airs Incorrect Footage During Syria Footage  ABC News Airs "Syria" Footage From A Kentucky Gun Range |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:40:08 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ch1966: Langley. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:45:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:49:35 PM EDT
[#10]
Nobody trusts the government. Sure as shit not 90% of the time.
Remember when the IRS was targeting conservatives? Hell, remember when the Government was giving a bunch of black people syphilis? Oops. Remember when the government told you ivermectin and hydroxy chloroquine was always bad? 80+ years of data proves otherwise.... Remember when they told you about the 6 foot rule? Fauci was on video admitting to making that up Remember when they told you the Phizer vaccine was "95% safe?". 96% of the vaccine group were under 55 and had no comorbid conditions like HTN or DM. I could go on and on and on... But only liberal pinko commie-cigarettes would ever say the government is "90% honest." It's just unbelievably obtuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 10:56:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RRA_223: Nobody trusts the government. Sure as shit not 90% of the time. Remember when the IRS was targeting conservatives? Hell, remember when the Government was giving a bunch of black people syphilis? Oops. Remember when the government told you ivermectin and hydroxy chloroquine was always bad? 80+ years of data proves otherwise.... Remember when they told you about the 6 foot rule? Fauci was on video admitting to making that up Remember when they told you the Phizer vaccine was "95% safe?". 96% of the vaccine group were under 55 and had no comorbid conditions like HTN or DM. I could go on and on and on... But only liberal pinko commie-cigarettes would ever say the government is "90% honest." It's just unbelievably obtuse. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:29:06 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... All true. No professional can look at this raid and think it was done in accord with any standard evidentiary procedure. So then can we expect to see various government witnesses on the stand testifying as to why they did what they did? I just don't understand this idea that: A is known . . . . . Obviously now Z is known, let's all react to Z! Why is the most obvious course of action to assume everything between A and Z instead of waiting to see what the process, with which I assume you are quite familiar, the process that is our best effort at determining The Truth, produces? I know it's SOP for The Internet in general, I'm just a bit surprised at what I see coming from people who claim to actually understand the system. As far as I can tell I'm the only person in these threads who's actually scanning through hundreds of pages of various documents trying to find relevant information. It's kinda disappointing. Anyway, I'm going back to work. You should be free of my annoyance the rest of the day. ETA: I just scanned through the indictment again to make sure I didn't miss something, and wow--the difference between the story it tells and what everybody thinks happened is like night and day. Also, I missed this detail that came out a few months ago--did you know that there was a room that Trump put a lock on literally while federal agents were in the building receiving classified documents from his attorney? When they were doing the raid and they found that room locked, they were told there was nothing inside and they moved on and never entered it. They also missed a room in Trump's bedroom that had an entrance hidden behind a piece of furniture. To be clear, those are allegations. An indictment is an allegation or set of allegations based on the most prejudicial premises and attestations which have not been subject to the crucible of trial and cross examination. Sometimes those premises and attestations turn out to be complete crap. You know, like sometimes people swear to stuff they know is false so they can spy on a campaign, or go forward on novel untested theories because they hate an orange dude. Not sure what you're saying with the a to z thing. I would say that everyone can use circumstantial evidence. In most courts circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence. Sometimes it's better. DNA vs. eyewitness? I'll generally take DNA. Oh hey, you never did disclose your trusted legal analysts. What did they day about the Colorado/Trump ballot case? What did they say about Trump/Russia? What did they believe about the FISA court being subverted to spy on a party opponent? The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. 
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:31:04 PM EDT
[#13]
You guys are feeding leftist trolls.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:52:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Originally Posted By Kingdead: Lol 90%. Either you've never worked with government or you work FOR the government. Was the Steele Dossier 90+% accurate in your opinion? Originally Posted By JCoop: Your answer is not correct. Ask any old covert ops field agent. The best lie is 99% truth. Your answer to that is the context for any further conversation. Originally Posted By RRA_223: Nobody trusts the government. Sure as shit not 90% of the time. Remember when the IRS was targeting conservatives? Hell, remember when the Government was giving a bunch of black people syphilis? Oops. Remember when the government told you ivermectin and hydroxy chloroquine was always bad? 80+ years of data proves otherwise.... Remember when they told you about the 6 foot rule? Fauci was on video admitting to making that up Remember when they told you the Phizer vaccine was "95% safe?". 96% of the vaccine group were under 55 and had no comorbid conditions like HTN or DM. I could go on and on and on... But only liberal pinko commie-cigarettes would ever say the government is "90% honest." It's just unbelievably obtuse. Come on, guys--I very clearly said I was only talking about factual claims contained in court filings from the government. To @Kingdead--who produced the Steele dossier? (I'll give you a hint--it's right there in the name, and he wasn't even paid by the government for his collecting of rumors from his sources, much less actually a government employee. )
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/10/2024 11:55:11 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ThornBooger: You guys are feeding leftist trolls. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:03:29 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... I'm a fucking moron according to GD but in my 25 years of doing this Cincy has it right. You take picks of the scene as it is including all items. Once the original locations are documented you then photograph things individually. Another thing I'm confused about is do these people no write reports or supplements? I mean they are doing all this shit but where are the individual narratives documenting what each person did? Man I should have really pursued this agency with more effort. It seems you can stroll in, no scene documentation, no body cam, no follow-up narrative, nothing. You just blurt out whatever you want if anyone ever questions with zero scrutiny. |
|
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:04:00 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Off-the-Grid: If the agency has three letters it’s corrupt. Are you saying the BATFE and USPS aren't corrupt??? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:05:39 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By himarker: Have you ever executed a search warrant? That's just not how it's done. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By himarker: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... Have you ever executed a search warrant? That's just not how it's done. Yes, probably approaching 100. What is incorrect in that description? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:09:35 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Come on, guys--I very clearly said I was only talking about factual claims contained in court filings from the government. To @Kingdead--who produced the Steele dossier? (I'll give you a hint--it's right there in the name, and he wasn't even paid by the government for his collecting of rumors from his sources, much less actually a government employee. ) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:10:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: mancow]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm trying not to repeat myself and irritate people more than I already have, but maybe I can frame it this way. For people like us, there are really are only two primary sources of relevant information on these topics. One is the media, reporting from a variety of sources. I'm happy to ignore that for this conversation, other than using them as a way to link through to original sources. The other source is court filings from the government. That's the one I want to focus on. To avoid the obvious and useless distraction, I will stipulate that the government is not 100% trustworthy. I will also stipulate that the government's motives are at the very least suspect, or may also be wrong or even nefarious. The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%? My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... All true. No professional can look at this raid and think it was done in accord with any standard evidentiary procedure. So then can we expect to see various government witnesses on the stand testifying as to why they did what they did? I just don't understand this idea that: A is known . . . . . Obviously now Z is known, let's all react to Z! Why is the most obvious course of action to assume everything between A and Z instead of waiting to see what the process, with which I assume you are quite familiar, the process that is our best effort at determining The Truth, produces? I know it's SOP for The Internet in general, I'm just a bit surprised at what I see coming from people who claim to actually understand the system. As far as I can tell I'm the only person in these threads who's actually scanning through hundreds of pages of various documents trying to find relevant information. It's kinda disappointing. Anyway, I'm going back to work. You should be free of my annoyance the rest of the day. ETA: I just scanned through the indictment again to make sure I didn't miss something, and wow--the difference between the story it tells and what everybody thinks happened is like night and day. Also, I missed this detail that came out a few months ago--did you know that there was a room that Trump put a lock on literally while federal agents were in the building receiving classified documents from his attorney? When they were doing the raid and they found that room locked, they were told there was nothing inside and they moved on and never entered it. They also missed a room in Trump's bedroom that had an entrance hidden behind a piece of furniture. To be clear, those are allegations. An indictment is an allegation or set of allegations based on the most prejudicial premises and attestations which have not been subject to the crucible of trial and cross examination. Sometimes those premises and attestations turn out to be complete crap. You know, like sometimes people swear to stuff they know is false so they can spy on a campaign, or go forward on novel untested theories because they hate an orange dude. Not sure what you're saying with the a to z thing. I would say that everyone can use circumstantial evidence. In most courts circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence. Sometimes it's better. DNA vs. eyewitness? I'll generally take DNA. Oh hey, you never did disclose your trusted legal analysts. What did they day about the Colorado/Trump ballot case? What did they say about Trump/Russia? What did they believe about the FISA court being subverted to spy on a party opponent? The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. I understand the process. You should think about what has leaked, how in got the media attention, and why that matters in this context. But you want to shift focus to the selected premises in the indictment. OK. You do that. We'll see how much gets proven. That they felt the need to release a staged photograph with pre-printed labels tells me, an experienced litigator, a lot about their ethics, confidence in their case, or both. What do you think has come out in court? Has there been a trial I missed? I'm trying not to repeat myself and irritate people more than I already have, but maybe I can frame it this way. For people like us, there are really are only two primary sources of relevant information on these topics. One is the media, reporting from a variety of sources. I'm happy to ignore that for this conversation, other than using them as a way to link through to original sources. The other source is court filings from the government. That's the one I want to focus on. To avoid the obvious and useless distraction, I will stipulate that the government is not 100% trustworthy. I will also stipulate that the government's motives are at the very least suspect, or may also be wrong or even nefarious. The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%? My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this. People like us who? Who are you referring to? Media? Media is a source of creditable informatiion? Mika is a legit source of your info? Get the fuck out with this shit. The gig is up. You pushed too hard too fast and forgot there was an internet. Legacy fake republican dick sucking Mika, smell my finger Lemon and the human teletubby Steltser are history. That shit no longer gains lift. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:29:47 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mancow: People like us who? Who are you referring to? Media? Media is a source of creditable informatiion? Mika is a legit source of your info? Get the fuck out with this shit. The gig is up. You pushed too hard too fast and forgot there was an internet. Legacy fake republican dick sucking Mika, smell my finger Lemon and the human teletubby Steltser are history. That shit no longer gains lift. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mancow: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... All true. No professional can look at this raid and think it was done in accord with any standard evidentiary procedure. So then can we expect to see various government witnesses on the stand testifying as to why they did what they did? I just don't understand this idea that: A is known . . . . . Obviously now Z is known, let's all react to Z! Why is the most obvious course of action to assume everything between A and Z instead of waiting to see what the process, with which I assume you are quite familiar, the process that is our best effort at determining The Truth, produces? I know it's SOP for The Internet in general, I'm just a bit surprised at what I see coming from people who claim to actually understand the system. As far as I can tell I'm the only person in these threads who's actually scanning through hundreds of pages of various documents trying to find relevant information. It's kinda disappointing. Anyway, I'm going back to work. You should be free of my annoyance the rest of the day. ETA: I just scanned through the indictment again to make sure I didn't miss something, and wow--the difference between the story it tells and what everybody thinks happened is like night and day. Also, I missed this detail that came out a few months ago--did you know that there was a room that Trump put a lock on literally while federal agents were in the building receiving classified documents from his attorney? When they were doing the raid and they found that room locked, they were told there was nothing inside and they moved on and never entered it. They also missed a room in Trump's bedroom that had an entrance hidden behind a piece of furniture. To be clear, those are allegations. An indictment is an allegation or set of allegations based on the most prejudicial premises and attestations which have not been subject to the crucible of trial and cross examination. Sometimes those premises and attestations turn out to be complete crap. You know, like sometimes people swear to stuff they know is false so they can spy on a campaign, or go forward on novel untested theories because they hate an orange dude. Not sure what you're saying with the a to z thing. I would say that everyone can use circumstantial evidence. In most courts circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence. Sometimes it's better. DNA vs. eyewitness? I'll generally take DNA. Oh hey, you never did disclose your trusted legal analysts. What did they day about the Colorado/Trump ballot case? What did they say about Trump/Russia? What did they believe about the FISA court being subverted to spy on a party opponent? The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. I understand the process. You should think about what has leaked, how in got the media attention, and why that matters in this context. But you want to shift focus to the selected premises in the indictment. OK. You do that. We'll see how much gets proven. That they felt the need to release a staged photograph with pre-printed labels tells me, an experienced litigator, a lot about their ethics, confidence in their case, or both. What do you think has come out in court? Has there been a trial I missed? I'm trying not to repeat myself and irritate people more than I already have, but maybe I can frame it this way. For people like us, there are really are only two primary sources of relevant information on these topics. One is the media, reporting from a variety of sources. I'm happy to ignore that for this conversation, other than using them as a way to link through to original sources. The other source is court filings from the government. That's the one I want to focus on. To avoid the obvious and useless distraction, I will stipulate that the government is not 100% trustworthy. I will also stipulate that the government's motives are at the very least suspect, or may also be wrong or even nefarious. The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%? My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this. People like us who? Who are you referring to? Media? Media is a source of creditable informatiion? Mika is a legit source of your info? Get the fuck out with this shit. The gig is up. You pushed too hard too fast and forgot there was an internet. Legacy fake republican dick sucking Mika, smell my finger Lemon and the human teletubby Steltser are history. That shit no longer gains lift. I'm not quite sure what you are talking about, but for the record when I say "people like us" I mean people who have no direct contact or involvement with the subject of discussion and only have access to the internet for relevant information. So yeah, the only sources of factual information available to us regarding all of Trump's court cases is (possibly) media reporting and whatever the government puts out, which is mostly going to be part of the court process. I know the media part is controversial, so I excluded it preemptively from the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:30:17 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kingdead: And did that dossier trigger a 32 million dollar investigation by yours one and only FBI? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kingdead: Originally Posted By CMiller: Come on, guys--I very clearly said I was only talking about factual claims contained in court filings from the government. To @Kingdead--who produced the Steele dossier? (I'll give you a hint--it's right there in the name, and he wasn't even paid by the government for his collecting of rumors from his sources, much less actually a government employee. )How is that relevant to the question of how much we can trust factual claims in court filings from the government? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:36:50 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mancow: I'm a fucking moron according to GD but in my 25 years of doing this Cincy has it right. You take picks of the scene as it is including all items. Once the original locations are documented you then photograph things individually. Another thing I'm confused about is do these people no write reports or supplements? I mean they are doing all this shit but where are the individual narratives documenting what each person did? Man I should have really pursued this agency with more effort. It seems you can stroll in, no scene documentation, no body cam, no follow-up narrative, nothing. You just blurt out whatever you want if anyone ever questions with zero scrutiny. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mancow: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... I'm a fucking moron according to GD but in my 25 years of doing this Cincy has it right. You take picks of the scene as it is including all items. Once the original locations are documented you then photograph things individually. Another thing I'm confused about is do these people no write reports or supplements? I mean they are doing all this shit but where are the individual narratives documenting what each person did? Man I should have really pursued this agency with more effort. It seems you can stroll in, no scene documentation, no body cam, no follow-up narrative, nothing. You just blurt out whatever you want if anyone ever questions with zero scrutiny. The FBI rarely writes detailed reports and almost never records interviews. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:38:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: mancow]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: How is that relevant to the question of how much we can trust factual claims in court filings from the government? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Kingdead: Originally Posted By CMiller: Come on, guys--I very clearly said I was only talking about factual claims contained in court filings from the government. To @Kingdead--who produced the Steele dossier? (I'll give you a hint--it's right there in the name, and he wasn't even paid by the government for his collecting of rumors from his sources, much less actually a government employee. )How is that relevant to the question of how much we can trust factual claims in court filings from the government? Years of bullshit claims leaked to the media and proven bullshit have zero relevance to veracity? Strange, that shit wouldn't fly in a local county district court. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:38:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Kingdead]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: How is that relevant to the question of how much we can trust factual claims in court filings from the government? You ask again how much we can trust "factual claims" by the government? Exhibit A, the Steele Dossier and subsequent 32 million dollar investigation by the FBI based on political motivation and false premises. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:41:34 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: How is that relevant to the question of how much we can trust factual claims in court filings from the government? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Kingdead: Originally Posted By CMiller: Come on, guys--I very clearly said I was only talking about factual claims contained in court filings from the government. To @Kingdead--who produced the Steele dossier? (I'll give you a hint--it's right there in the name, and he wasn't even paid by the government for his collecting of rumors from his sources, much less actually a government employee. )How is that relevant to the question of how much we can trust factual claims in court filings from the government? When it comes to Trump, sadly, not at all. The feds have a terrible track record which includes lying to the Court to get the orange man. You are, of course, free to believe their filings. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 1:53:48 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm trying not to repeat myself and irritate people more than I already have, but maybe I can frame it this way. For people like us, there are really are only two primary sources of relevant information on these topics. One is the media, reporting from a variety of sources. I'm happy to ignore that for this conversation, other than using them as a way to link through to original sources. The other source is court filings from the government. That's the one I want to focus on. To avoid the obvious and useless distraction, I will stipulate that the government is not 100% trustworthy. I will also stipulate that the government's motives are at the very least suspect, or may also be wrong or even nefarious. The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%? My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... All true. No professional can look at this raid and think it was done in accord with any standard evidentiary procedure. So then can we expect to see various government witnesses on the stand testifying as to why they did what they did? I just don't understand this idea that: A is known . . . . . Obviously now Z is known, let's all react to Z! Why is the most obvious course of action to assume everything between A and Z instead of waiting to see what the process, with which I assume you are quite familiar, the process that is our best effort at determining The Truth, produces? I know it's SOP for The Internet in general, I'm just a bit surprised at what I see coming from people who claim to actually understand the system. As far as I can tell I'm the only person in these threads who's actually scanning through hundreds of pages of various documents trying to find relevant information. It's kinda disappointing. Anyway, I'm going back to work. You should be free of my annoyance the rest of the day. ETA: I just scanned through the indictment again to make sure I didn't miss something, and wow--the difference between the story it tells and what everybody thinks happened is like night and day. Also, I missed this detail that came out a few months ago--did you know that there was a room that Trump put a lock on literally while federal agents were in the building receiving classified documents from his attorney? When they were doing the raid and they found that room locked, they were told there was nothing inside and they moved on and never entered it. They also missed a room in Trump's bedroom that had an entrance hidden behind a piece of furniture. To be clear, those are allegations. An indictment is an allegation or set of allegations based on the most prejudicial premises and attestations which have not been subject to the crucible of trial and cross examination. Sometimes those premises and attestations turn out to be complete crap. You know, like sometimes people swear to stuff they know is false so they can spy on a campaign, or go forward on novel untested theories because they hate an orange dude. Not sure what you're saying with the a to z thing. I would say that everyone can use circumstantial evidence. In most courts circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence. Sometimes it's better. DNA vs. eyewitness? I'll generally take DNA. Oh hey, you never did disclose your trusted legal analysts. What did they day about the Colorado/Trump ballot case? What did they say about Trump/Russia? What did they believe about the FISA court being subverted to spy on a party opponent? The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. I understand the process. You should think about what has leaked, how in got the media attention, and why that matters in this context. But you want to shift focus to the selected premises in the indictment. OK. You do that. We'll see how much gets proven. That they felt the need to release a staged photograph with pre-printed labels tells me, an experienced litigator, a lot about their ethics, confidence in their case, or both. What do you think has come out in court? Has there been a trial I missed? I'm trying not to repeat myself and irritate people more than I already have, but maybe I can frame it this way. For people like us, there are really are only two primary sources of relevant information on these topics. One is the media, reporting from a variety of sources. I'm happy to ignore that for this conversation, other than using them as a way to link through to original sources. The other source is court filings from the government. That's the one I want to focus on. To avoid the obvious and useless distraction, I will stipulate that the government is not 100% trustworthy. I will also stipulate that the government's motives are at the very least suspect, or may also be wrong or even nefarious. The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%? My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this. @mcculver5 I was hoping you would answer the question, maybe you missed it. "The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%?" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 2:00:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Kingdead]
[#28]
Solzhenitsyn warned us that everything the Soviets did was "legal". They got their forced confessions, accusations, and laws against those deemed to be conducting anti Soviet activities. History has judged them otherwise. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? I find the actions of some here to fit the Soviets of the 1930s through 1950s.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 2:31:25 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By THR-Thumper: No dog in this fight, but having handled thousands and thousands of classified docs of all stripes, there’s a critical piece missing from those sheets to make them legit. . I’m certain I’m not the only person here that knows it, either. Those sheets were propaganda. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By THR-Thumper: Originally Posted By himarker: Have you considered the idea they needed to document via photographs that they located the documents but had to put coversheets on them for the photographs? You people will believe anything that supports trump being a victim. No dog in this fight, but having handled thousands and thousands of classified docs of all stripes, there’s a critical piece missing from those sheets to make them legit. . I’m certain I’m not the only person here that knows it, either. Those sheets were propaganda. I've been the primary or been involved in at least the execution of over 100 search warrants and many of these guys here don't know what they speak of. I lost count over the years it may be much higher. Don't know anything about classified documents, but I know about executing search warrants. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 2:36:51 AM EDT
[#30]
The fact that the most rabid, foaming at the mouth leftist N_T has not posted in this thread, especially within the fist few posts, is very telling.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 2:38:24 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JCoop: Interesting observation. But I don't think so. CMiller is incredibly obtuse for some other reason. I don't think he/she is an adolescent. The writing style is not that of a child. However, I would also say that CM is young. His writing style doesn't convey any longevity of life experience. He is clearly a liberal as denoted by his endless 'what ifs' in the face of overwhelming evidence. Also, I think there is more than a remote chance that CM is gay due to the lack of typically heterosexual male aggressive speech patterns (not that there is anything wrong with that). CM comes from a relatively (sub)urban, privileged lifestyle. I would posit that CMiller could be one of these things. 1) possibly a first year law student who see's these hopeless debates as practice. 2) A first or second year liberal arts student perhaps majoring in art history or similar. 3) A recent graduate of a liberal arts college who clearly believes he is an order of magnitude smarter than any smelly, unwashed conservative. Anybody have further observations? (Note: Use of he and his are for literary convenience) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JCoop: Originally Posted By dwhitehorne: almost like you are an adolescent. David I would posit that CMiller could be one of these things. 1) possibly a first year law student who see's these hopeless debates as practice. 2) A first or second year liberal arts student perhaps majoring in art history or similar. 3) A recent graduate of a liberal arts college who clearly believes he is an order of magnitude smarter than any smelly, unwashed conservative. Anybody have further observations? (Note: Use of he and his are for literary convenience) Further observations are some would consider jcoop a prick who believes he's smarter than everyone. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:04:29 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 5:27:26 AM EDT
[#33]
OST
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:16:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cycolac]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mancow: Years of bullshit claims leaked to the media and proven bullshit have zero relevance to veracity? Strange, that shit wouldn't fly in a local county district court. Not sure where you are going with that but it's been my experience that local courts are highly susceptible to cronyism and feelz over facts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:41:10 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mancow: Another thing I'm confused about is do these people no write reports or supplements? I mean they are doing all this shit but where are the individual narratives documenting what each person did? Man I should have really pursued this agency with more effort. It seems you can stroll in, no scene documentation, no body cam, no follow-up narrative, nothing. You just blurt out whatever you want if anyone ever questions with zero scrutiny. This is a good question. Where I worked Detectives had to complete a supplemental report on the case updating the status for the case file every 30 days until it was closed out. Of course you will only see what they want you to because FOIA is blocked from on going investigations. David |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:57:28 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kingdead: Lol 90%. Either you've never worked with government or you work FOR the government. Was the Steele Dossier 90+% accurate in your opinion? Came to post this The same motherfuckers that gave us that lie are now peddling this bullshit. It is revealing to see the same members line up for another ration. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:00:06 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: @mcculver5 I was hoping you would answer the question, maybe you missed it. "The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%?" Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... All true. No professional can look at this raid and think it was done in accord with any standard evidentiary procedure. So then can we expect to see various government witnesses on the stand testifying as to why they did what they did? I just don't understand this idea that: A is known . . . . . Obviously now Z is known, let's all react to Z! Why is the most obvious course of action to assume everything between A and Z instead of waiting to see what the process, with which I assume you are quite familiar, the process that is our best effort at determining The Truth, produces? I know it's SOP for The Internet in general, I'm just a bit surprised at what I see coming from people who claim to actually understand the system. As far as I can tell I'm the only person in these threads who's actually scanning through hundreds of pages of various documents trying to find relevant information. It's kinda disappointing. Anyway, I'm going back to work. You should be free of my annoyance the rest of the day. ETA: I just scanned through the indictment again to make sure I didn't miss something, and wow--the difference between the story it tells and what everybody thinks happened is like night and day. Also, I missed this detail that came out a few months ago--did you know that there was a room that Trump put a lock on literally while federal agents were in the building receiving classified documents from his attorney? When they were doing the raid and they found that room locked, they were told there was nothing inside and they moved on and never entered it. They also missed a room in Trump's bedroom that had an entrance hidden behind a piece of furniture. To be clear, those are allegations. An indictment is an allegation or set of allegations based on the most prejudicial premises and attestations which have not been subject to the crucible of trial and cross examination. Sometimes those premises and attestations turn out to be complete crap. You know, like sometimes people swear to stuff they know is false so they can spy on a campaign, or go forward on novel untested theories because they hate an orange dude. Not sure what you're saying with the a to z thing. I would say that everyone can use circumstantial evidence. In most courts circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence. Sometimes it's better. DNA vs. eyewitness? I'll generally take DNA. Oh hey, you never did disclose your trusted legal analysts. What did they day about the Colorado/Trump ballot case? What did they say about Trump/Russia? What did they believe about the FISA court being subverted to spy on a party opponent? The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. I understand the process. You should think about what has leaked, how in got the media attention, and why that matters in this context. But you want to shift focus to the selected premises in the indictment. OK. You do that. We'll see how much gets proven. That they felt the need to release a staged photograph with pre-printed labels tells me, an experienced litigator, a lot about their ethics, confidence in their case, or both. What do you think has come out in court? Has there been a trial I missed? I'm trying not to repeat myself and irritate people more than I already have, but maybe I can frame it this way. For people like us, there are really are only two primary sources of relevant information on these topics. One is the media, reporting from a variety of sources. I'm happy to ignore that for this conversation, other than using them as a way to link through to original sources. The other source is court filings from the government. That's the one I want to focus on. To avoid the obvious and useless distraction, I will stipulate that the government is not 100% trustworthy. I will also stipulate that the government's motives are at the very least suspect, or may also be wrong or even nefarious. The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%? My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this. @mcculver5 I was hoping you would answer the question, maybe you missed it. "The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%?" In the context of a Trump case, I trust the FBI and DOJ not one bit, as noted in the post above your @ post. One cannot answer a hypothetical in the abstract without noting the apparently reason and good judgement retarding influence of Trump on the minds of the FBI and DOJ. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:08:41 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: "The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%?" Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... All true. No professional can look at this raid and think it was done in accord with any standard evidentiary procedure. So then can we expect to see various government witnesses on the stand testifying as to why they did what they did? I just don't understand this idea that: A is known . . . . . Obviously now Z is known, let's all react to Z! Why is the most obvious course of action to assume everything between A and Z instead of waiting to see what the process, with which I assume you are quite familiar, the process that is our best effort at determining The Truth, produces? I know it's SOP for The Internet in general, I'm just a bit surprised at what I see coming from people who claim to actually understand the system. As far as I can tell I'm the only person in these threads who's actually scanning through hundreds of pages of various documents trying to find relevant information. It's kinda disappointing. Anyway, I'm going back to work. You should be free of my annoyance the rest of the day. ETA: I just scanned through the indictment again to make sure I didn't miss something, and wow--the difference between the story it tells and what everybody thinks happened is like night and day. Also, I missed this detail that came out a few months ago--did you know that there was a room that Trump put a lock on literally while federal agents were in the building receiving classified documents from his attorney? When they were doing the raid and they found that room locked, they were told there was nothing inside and they moved on and never entered it. They also missed a room in Trump's bedroom that had an entrance hidden behind a piece of furniture. To be clear, those are allegations. An indictment is an allegation or set of allegations based on the most prejudicial premises and attestations which have not been subject to the crucible of trial and cross examination. Sometimes those premises and attestations turn out to be complete crap. You know, like sometimes people swear to stuff they know is false so they can spy on a campaign, or go forward on novel untested theories because they hate an orange dude. Not sure what you're saying with the a to z thing. I would say that everyone can use circumstantial evidence. In most courts circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence. Sometimes it's better. DNA vs. eyewitness? I'll generally take DNA. Oh hey, you never did disclose your trusted legal analysts. What did they day about the Colorado/Trump ballot case? What did they say about Trump/Russia? What did they believe about the FISA court being subverted to spy on a party opponent? The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. I understand the process. You should think about what has leaked, how in got the media attention, and why that matters in this context. But you want to shift focus to the selected premises in the indictment. OK. You do that. We'll see how much gets proven. That they felt the need to release a staged photograph with pre-printed labels tells me, an experienced litigator, a lot about their ethics, confidence in their case, or both. What do you think has come out in court? Has there been a trial I missed? I'm trying not to repeat myself and irritate people more than I already have, but maybe I can frame it this way. For people like us, there are really are only two primary sources of relevant information on these topics. One is the media, reporting from a variety of sources. I'm happy to ignore that for this conversation, other than using them as a way to link through to original sources. The other source is court filings from the government. That's the one I want to focus on. To avoid the obvious and useless distraction, I will stipulate that the government is not 100% trustworthy. I will also stipulate that the government's motives are at the very least suspect, or may also be wrong or even nefarious. The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%? My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this. "The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%?" Evidence of what? Are the photos the FBI took at the scene, “evidence”? Were they presented to the grand jury as such? |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:12:46 AM EDT
[#39]
Trust the DOJ ya say?
As FBI director in 2002, Special Counsel Robert Mueller directed his agents to oppose the pardons of four wrongfully imprisoned men because exculpatory evidence was merely “fodder for cross-examination,” newly revealed FBI documents show. Four years later, the four men, or their estates, were awarded $102 million by a federal judge in Boston for their wrongful decades-long imprisonment due to FBI misconduct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:58:12 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 505stevec: Apparently, the office of professional responsibility, in the FBI no longer exists. The assholes involved in this rage should be terminated. With extreme prejudice. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 9:42:31 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By The_Five_Elements: Pretty funny that the usual blueAnon paid trolls are not in this thread for some weird reason… I noticed that too. Maybe they're all at their local college protesting, LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 9:48:05 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kobolowsky_Tires: I noticed that too. Maybe they're all at their local college protesting, LOL. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kobolowsky_Tires: Originally Posted By The_Five_Elements: Pretty funny that the usual blueAnon paid trolls are not in this thread for some weird reason I noticed that too. Maybe they're all at their local college protesting, LOL. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 10:04:33 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JCoop: Your answer is not correct. Ask any old covert ops field agent. The best lie is 99% truth. Your answer to that is the context for any further conversation. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JCoop: Originally Posted By CMiller: My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 10:17:04 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ch1966: Langley. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ch1966: Originally Posted By JCoop: I'm thinking CMiller is from either of the coasts or somewhere liberal upper midwest, probably Minneapolis. Or possibly Austin, San Francisco, or NYC. You guys notice any regional speech patterns? I would hope we have higher quality there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 10:21:05 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JowyBravo: Are you saying the BATFE and USPS aren't corrupt??? USPS as an organization maybe incompetent but it isn't corrupt. BATFE is commonly referred to as the ATF...a three letter name. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:15:30 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By himarker: Further observations are some would consider jcoop a prick who believes he's smarter than everyone. Here, let me fix it for ya. If you're gonna denigrate somebody, do it right. I have to do everything around here? ...a lazy, no good, insufferable know-it-all prick who believes he's smarter than any lying, scum sucking liberal commie who has ever wasted oxygen. Bonus points if you read that in my wife's voice.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:21:26 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: In the context of a Trump case, I trust the FBI and DOJ not one bit, as noted in the post above your @ post. One cannot answer a hypothetical in the abstract without noting the apparently reason and good judgement retarding influence of Trump on the minds of the FBI and DOJ. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By mcculver5: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: How else would you like them to document the contents of each box? Are they supposed to just take a picture of the stuff in the box without showing what it is? Or would you rather they expose themselves to accusations they planted stuff in the boxes after seizing them? Yes. You take a picture of the boxes where they were and how they were sealed/stored. Maybe even take fingerprints and touch DNA right there, before moving the boxes. THEN remove the boxes to the relevant field office, and document (video and photo) the boxes as they are opened, ensuring that the order of the documents and the documents themselves are documented as they are removed. Again, take fingerprints and collect DNA for each document. THAT is how you avoid such accusations. Ripping open the boxes there on site served no purpose. Unless it did... All true. No professional can look at this raid and think it was done in accord with any standard evidentiary procedure. So then can we expect to see various government witnesses on the stand testifying as to why they did what they did? I just don't understand this idea that: A is known . . . . . Obviously now Z is known, let's all react to Z! Why is the most obvious course of action to assume everything between A and Z instead of waiting to see what the process, with which I assume you are quite familiar, the process that is our best effort at determining The Truth, produces? I know it's SOP for The Internet in general, I'm just a bit surprised at what I see coming from people who claim to actually understand the system. As far as I can tell I'm the only person in these threads who's actually scanning through hundreds of pages of various documents trying to find relevant information. It's kinda disappointing. Anyway, I'm going back to work. You should be free of my annoyance the rest of the day. ETA: I just scanned through the indictment again to make sure I didn't miss something, and wow--the difference between the story it tells and what everybody thinks happened is like night and day. Also, I missed this detail that came out a few months ago--did you know that there was a room that Trump put a lock on literally while federal agents were in the building receiving classified documents from his attorney? When they were doing the raid and they found that room locked, they were told there was nothing inside and they moved on and never entered it. They also missed a room in Trump's bedroom that had an entrance hidden behind a piece of furniture. To be clear, those are allegations. An indictment is an allegation or set of allegations based on the most prejudicial premises and attestations which have not been subject to the crucible of trial and cross examination. Sometimes those premises and attestations turn out to be complete crap. You know, like sometimes people swear to stuff they know is false so they can spy on a campaign, or go forward on novel untested theories because they hate an orange dude. Not sure what you're saying with the a to z thing. I would say that everyone can use circumstantial evidence. In most courts circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence. Sometimes it's better. DNA vs. eyewitness? I'll generally take DNA. Oh hey, you never did disclose your trusted legal analysts. What did they day about the Colorado/Trump ballot case? What did they say about Trump/Russia? What did they believe about the FISA court being subverted to spy on a party opponent? The point I was trying to make is that there is so much information and detail, especially about the real evidence, that will not come out until this thing actually gets to trial, yet the general theme that I observe is that people are saying "if we don't have it all now, it doesn't exist, therefore conclusion X" (fill in the blank with a bunch of possibilities), and then proceed to react and get outraged as if conclusion X is proven fact. The legal system is a place where facts and evidence still matter, I'm trying to stick to what is known or likely and not going any further. If you read the indictment, it's obvious that the government has a bunch of video surveillance from Mar-a-Lago showing various things happening with all these boxes of documents over a period of months. It's also obvious they have phone communications between various Trump employees, and they also have cooperating witnesses from Mar-A-Lago employees. That ain't everything, but it also ain't nothing. It would be nice to have a conversation with people who have at least reviewed what has actually come out in court, but I guess it's too much to hope for. So we spend all our time talking about speculation, ridiculous fake news, fantastical narratives, etc. instead. I understand the process. You should think about what has leaked, how in got the media attention, and why that matters in this context. But you want to shift focus to the selected premises in the indictment. OK. You do that. We'll see how much gets proven. That they felt the need to release a staged photograph with pre-printed labels tells me, an experienced litigator, a lot about their ethics, confidence in their case, or both. What do you think has come out in court? Has there been a trial I missed? I'm trying not to repeat myself and irritate people more than I already have, but maybe I can frame it this way. For people like us, there are really are only two primary sources of relevant information on these topics. One is the media, reporting from a variety of sources. I'm happy to ignore that for this conversation, other than using them as a way to link through to original sources. The other source is court filings from the government. That's the one I want to focus on. To avoid the obvious and useless distraction, I will stipulate that the government is not 100% trustworthy. I will also stipulate that the government's motives are at the very least suspect, or may also be wrong or even nefarious. The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%? My answer is at least 90+%. Your answer to that question is the context for any discussion about any of this. @mcculver5 I was hoping you would answer the question, maybe you missed it. "The critical question is this--considering that the government has full access to any and all evidence that they intend to introduce at trial, when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing, how likely is it to be accurate and reliable? 10%? 50%? 90%?" In the context of a Trump case, I trust the FBI and DOJ not one bit, as noted in the post above your @ post. One cannot answer a hypothetical in the abstract without noting the apparently reason and good judgement retarding influence of Trump on the minds of the FBI and DOJ. I want to make sure I'm understanding you--are you saying that as somebody who has worked inside the legal system for many years, you have no confidence that when the government makes a factual claim in a court filing they are telling the truth and not lying? Again, I'm not talking about motive or bias, I'm not talking about bad faith prosecution, or whatever else you want to accuse the government of doing. I'm simply talking about whether we can take their factual claims at face value. You seriously believe it's most likely they don't have hard evidence backing up their factual claims? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:26:39 PM EDT
[#48]
Are you suggesting the documents in the photo came from the FBI and were planted?
I don't understand the circles and arrows. Seems to be an effort to downplay the classification levels and misdirect away from, say, that one open document obviously labeled TS and with the caveats even covered up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:32:09 PM EDT
[#49]
Well, it looks like we've again seem the construction of an elaborate counter-narrative, one which ignores the contradictory filings from Trump's own legal team, and we see the usual "what, do you believe everything the government says" response as somehow counting as intelligent discussion of anyone dares question the new counter-narrative.
These videos smack of "loose change" all over again, with the same empty defensive rhetoric offered to anyone who dares suggest they might be a tad biased or distorting. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:35:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JCoop: Here, let me fix it for ya. If you're gonna denigrate somebody, do it right. I have to do everything around here? ...a lazy, no good, insufferable know-it-all prick who believes he's smarter than any lying, scum sucking liberal commie who has ever wasted oxygen. Bonus points if you read that in my wife's voice. I like you...  Ignore the liberal Alaskan...he doesn't speak for most of us... 
|
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
