User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:41:23 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: 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 12:47:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kingdead: They've lied in the past. The Mueller investigation was based on documents created by Democrat auxiliaries. How about when the IRS said the "lost" their emails that showed they were targeting the Tea Party. Trump calling dead US soldiers "losers and suckers" based on an anonymous sources. At some point I stop paying attention to what the noise makers are drumming up on a given day. Maybe the charges against Trump are valid and he will be found guilty, maybe it's just another bureaucratic targeting of an undesirable political adversary. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kingdead: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: 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. Regardless, the capability of the government to lie is a fucktarded reason to shut down your brain and just tribally align with just whatever narrative is being pushed your way. It's not reasoning, it's the surrender of reason. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 12:55:57 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Regardless, the capability of the government to lie is a fucktarded reason to shut down your brain and just tribally align with just whatever narrative is being pushed your way. It's not reasoning, it's the surrender of reason. Seems thats a 2 way street to begin with...Also the guy is right as far as many of the players associated with the past "GET TRUMP SHIT" that turned out fake, are the same people involved with this setup right down to coordinating with DA's in other states, the FBI, the DOJ and the Biden administration, including the White House.. And the prosecutor has already been proven to lie/cheat his ass off to prosecute others on the right, that the Courts had to straighten out so innocents didn't get jailed by a fucking POS.......So yeah, I think people indeed have every right to question motives and facts as laid out by the feds until they actually prove it really happened and wasn't them setting someone up with law fare.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 1:05:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kingdead]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Regardless, the capability of the government to lie is a fucktarded reason to shut down your brain and just tribally align with just whatever narrative is being pushed your way. It's not reasoning, it's the surrender of reason. I've debated with people who think the earth is flat. Their ability to ignore all rational criticisms and keep coming up with asinine proofs the earth is flat is pretty astounding. At some point I just walk away because they can never be reasoned with. I've worked with the government in limited capacity and while not all are bad, some of the activists can be like the flat earth supporters. They will not stop once they have an agenda. I have little reason to believe what they say or desire to invest time to pick apart everything (if I was even smart enough to do that which I'm not) when I think their intentions are not the best. What is the purpose of this investigation? Are they concerned Trump had documents that either he would lose or brag about and give away important national information? They have the documents now supposedly, why continue the prosecution? If the goal is to prosecute and convict all criminal activity, then I wonder why did Hillary get the "no reasonable prosecutor" approach when she was found to have mishandled secret information. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 1:08:11 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Regardless, the capability of the government to lie is a fucktarded reason to shut down your brain and just tribally align with just whatever narrative is being pushed your way. It's not reasoning, it's the surrender of reason. It's not the "capability" of the government to lie. It's become an extremely strong likelihood that they are lying, and it's no coincidence that the falsehoods all pull in the same direction. Especially with criminal cases, where the DOJ/FBI now has an extensive and well proven record of falsifying, altering, concealing, destroying, censoring discussion of, and of course lying outright about evidence. A reasonable person no longer extends what I would call "the presumption of regularity" to anything the federal government says, or does. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 1:39:48 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AKSnowRider: I like you...  Ignore the liberal Alaskan...he doesn't speak for most of us...  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AKSnowRider: Originally 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...  |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 1:50:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JKH62: I remember the FBI requested Trump turn off his security cameras and turn over all video of the FBI raid. Hopefully there is some good stuff of the FBI in action. Every agent on site should have had body cams. And the answer to that request should be NO and FUCK NO |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 1:55:08 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/fbi-evidence-photo-standard-practice-trump-mar-a-lago-search-2022-9%3famp You know how we know the FBI put those cover sheets in there? Because the government told us in a recent court filing: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/585454/1000008374_jpg-3209593.JPG But yeah, there's some really sneaky nefarious stuff happening in that picture! If you've been paying attention at all since Trumps first campaign you literally couldn't write what you've posted in the past . Everything you type just reinforces the narrative . You have zero credibility, so stop typing . |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 1:59:47 PM EDT
[#9]
At this point after all I have seen if I am ever on a jury and the FBI is involved in any way shape or form I would vote not guilty and it wouldn't matter what the charges and evidence were.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 2:28:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JosephTurrisi: At this point after all I have seen if I am ever on a jury and the FBI is involved in any way shape or form I would vote not guilty and it wouldn't matter what the charges and evidence were.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 2:51:35 PM EDT
[#11]
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. Ironically, the only defense the field agents will have for handling the documents will be that they were declassified….otherwise they are all in violation and should be charged. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:14:06 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: It's not the "capability" of the government to lie. It's become an extremely strong likelihood that they are lying, and it's no coincidence that the falsehoods all pull in the same direction. Especially with criminal cases, where the DOJ/FBI now has an extensive and well proven record of falsifying, altering, concealing, destroying, censoring discussion of, and of course lying outright about evidence. A reasonable person no longer extends what I would call "the presumption of regularity" to anything the federal government says, or does. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Regardless, the capability of the government to lie is a fucktarded reason to shut down your brain and just tribally align with just whatever narrative is being pushed your way. It's not reasoning, it's the surrender of reason. It's not the "capability" of the government to lie. It's become an extremely strong likelihood that they are lying, and it's no coincidence that the falsehoods all pull in the same direction. Especially with criminal cases, where the DOJ/FBI now has an extensive and well proven record of falsifying, altering, concealing, destroying, censoring discussion of, and of course lying outright about evidence. A reasonable person no longer extends what I would call "the presumption of regularity" to anything the federal government says, or does. The problem as I see it is when purportedly "reasonable persons" fail to see the lies, manipulation, and fact twisting in photos like shown in the OP and the videos in this thread. The desire to go "well, I can't trust anything entity A has said because they've lied to me before" just never seems to be consistently applied. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:26:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: The problem as I see it is when purportedly "reasonable persons" fail to see the lies, manipulation, and fact twisting in photos like shown in the OP and the videos in this thread. The desire to go "well, I can't trust anything entity A has said because they've lied to me before" just never seems to be consistently applied. "Lied to me before" And "Ran a successful coup on the individual currently under prosecution by the exact same people" Are not even remotely the same thing. Obviously it's possible to believe the Federal Government is a virtuous organization that typically applies justice in a uniform fashion, but you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to believe that is actually the case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:51:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: 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. The cover sheets came from the FBI. Luckily, they brought along a “SECRET//SCI” cover sheet, just in case. lol Those are so common. Then they showed the grand jury photos of their cover sheets, to prove that there was “National Defense Information” hidden under the sheets. And got an indictment? Yes. lol |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:03:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: The problem as I see it is when purportedly "reasonable persons" fail to see the lies, manipulation, and fact twisting in photos like shown in the OP and the videos in this thread. The desire to go "well, I can't trust anything entity A has said because they've lied to me before" just never seems to be consistently applied. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Originally Posted By fargo007: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Regardless, the capability of the government to lie is a fucktarded reason to shut down your brain and just tribally align with just whatever narrative is being pushed your way. It's not reasoning, it's the surrender of reason. It's not the "capability" of the government to lie. It's become an extremely strong likelihood that they are lying, and it's no coincidence that the falsehoods all pull in the same direction. Especially with criminal cases, where the DOJ/FBI now has an extensive and well proven record of falsifying, altering, concealing, destroying, censoring discussion of, and of course lying outright about evidence. A reasonable person no longer extends what I would call "the presumption of regularity" to anything the federal government says, or does. The problem as I see it is when purportedly "reasonable persons" fail to see the lies, manipulation, and fact twisting in photos like shown in the OP and the videos in this thread. The desire to go "well, I can't trust anything entity A has said because they've lied to me before" just never seems to be consistently applied. But you don't have to even go there to see that there's a fundamental problem with the documents, and the evidentiary procedures here. The very same DOJ/FBI investigated Biden for this exact same thing. Biden's documents were of a more severe nature, stored in FAR less secure (multiple) locations, and yet there were no photographs taken of the boxes unpacked, and staged with other documents that the FBI brought with them. If that is what makes up the "lies, manipulation, and fact twisting," I'm absolutely with you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 6:21:54 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: The cover sheets came from the FBI. Luckily, they brought along a “SECRET//SCI” cover sheet, just in case. lol Those are so common. Then they showed the grand jury photos of their cover sheets, to prove that there was “National Defense Information” hidden under the sheets. And got an indictment? Yes. lol Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: 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. The cover sheets came from the FBI. Luckily, they brought along a “SECRET//SCI” cover sheet, just in case. lol Those are so common. Then they showed the grand jury photos of their cover sheets, to prove that there was “National Defense Information” hidden under the sheets. And got an indictment? Yes. lol That specifically is an odd one. 29 years working for the government and I've seen literally one single S/SCI document in all that time. It was such a strange classification no one in the room had ever seen it before. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:27:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: Biden's documents were of a more severe nature, I'm mostly ignoring the never-ending stream of BS in these threads, but this is a new one to me. You mind providing a little more detail, maybe a source for this rather significant claim? @fargo007 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:40:13 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm mostly ignoring the never-ending stream of BS in these threads, but this is a new one to me. You mind providing a little more detail, maybe a source for this rather significant claim? @fargo007 
|
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 7:51:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JosephTurrisi: At this point after all I have seen if I am ever on a jury and the FBI is involved in any way shape or form I would vote not guilty and it wouldn't matter what the charges and evidence were. Yuupppp! All three major presidential candidates from 2016 and 2020 have been caught with things they shouldn't have had. Two of the three were not charged yet the one they did charge is on evidence that looks to be planted and then mishandled. Looks to me the FBI has set a precedent by not charging people 2/3 of the time and therefore the other 1/3 should not be charged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:27:47 PM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:28:27 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Regardless, the capability of the government to lie is a fucktarded reason to shut down your brain and just tribally align with just whatever narrative is being pushed your way. It's not reasoning, it's the surrender of reason. This isn't just the capability. It is a long established pattern regarding Trump, starting with the dossier bullshit, the manufactured Alfa bank bullshit and the ear fucking they administered to Flynn, among others. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 8:41:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: 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? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally 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? In the context of a Trump case I do not trust the FBI or the DOJ. I wouldn't generalize beyond that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 11:39:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: You seriously believe it's most likely they don't have hard evidence backing up their factual claims? What did they show the grand jury to get the indictment? Did they show them the actual “National Defense Information” that they claim was in Trump’s possession? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 11:50:12 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AKSnowRider: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AKSnowRider: Originally Posted By CMiller: I'm mostly ignoring the never-ending stream of BS in these threads, but this is a new one to me. You mind providing a little more detail, maybe a source for this rather significant claim? @fargo007 Stolen docs he wasn't supposed to have in his possession , they won't charge him due to his mental state . We are assuming DOJ is telling the truth which is a stretch . |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:08:08 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm mostly ignoring the never-ending stream of BS in these threads, but this is a new one to me. You mind providing a little more detail, maybe a source for this rather significant claim? You're embarrassingly bad at playing the disinterested troll who just wants info and dialog. Problem is we spot your types quite quickly here and call you out. Whomever trained you to forum slide should get their money back... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 1:02:36 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Justintime2: You're embarrassingly bad at playing the disinterested troll who just wants info and dialog. Problem is we spot your types quite quickly here and call you out. Whomever trained you to forum slide should get their money back... Oof. Maybe he can put one of those Top Secret cover letters over the computer screen and pretend he's winning the argument underneath it 
|
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 7:08:55 AM EDT
[#27]
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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JCoop: Originally 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: 5/12/2024 8:50:17 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Justintime2: You're embarrassingly bad at playing the disinterested troll who just wants info and dialog. Problem is we spot your types quite quickly here and call you out. Whomever trained you to forum slide should get their money back...  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:54:39 AM EDT
[#29]
 Trump’s Lawyer Alina Habba SAVAGES Trolls Angry About Her Cooking: 'I'll Fold Laundry Next!' ?? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 10:37:38 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: It's not the "capability" of the government to lie. It's become an extremely strong likelihood that they are lying, and it's no coincidence that the falsehoods all pull in the same direction. Especially with criminal cases, where the DOJ/FBI now has an extensive and well proven record of falsifying, altering, concealing, destroying, censoring discussion of, and of course lying outright about evidence. A reasonable person no longer extends what I would call "the presumption of regularity" to anything the federal government says, or does.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 10:39:45 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: The problem as I see it is when purportedly "reasonable persons" fail to see the lies, manipulation, and fact twisting in photos like shown in the OP and the videos in this thread. The desire to go "well, I can't trust anything entity A has said because they've lied to me before" just never seems to be consistently applied. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Originally Posted By fargo007: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Regardless, the capability of the government to lie is a fucktarded reason to shut down your brain and just tribally align with just whatever narrative is being pushed your way. It's not reasoning, it's the surrender of reason. It's not the "capability" of the government to lie. It's become an extremely strong likelihood that they are lying, and it's no coincidence that the falsehoods all pull in the same direction. Especially with criminal cases, where the DOJ/FBI now has an extensive and well proven record of falsifying, altering, concealing, destroying, censoring discussion of, and of course lying outright about evidence. A reasonable person no longer extends what I would call "the presumption of regularity" to anything the federal government says, or does. The problem as I see it is when purportedly "reasonable persons" fail to see the lies, manipulation, and fact twisting in photos like shown in the OP and the videos in this thread. The desire to go "well, I can't trust anything entity A has said because they've lied to me before" just never seems to be consistently applied. It's not the single lie. It's the repeated lie after lie after lie. How many times could you be lied to by someone before the default response is, they are known liar's? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 10:53:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Morlawn66]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: But you don't have to even go there to see that there's a fundamental problem with the documents, and the evidentiary procedures here. The very same DOJ/FBI investigated Biden for this exact same thing. Biden's documents were of a more severe nature, stored in FAR less secure (multiple) locations, and yet there were no photographs taken of the boxes unpacked, and staged with other documents that the FBI brought with them. If that is what makes up the "lies, manipulation, and fact twisting," I'm absolutely with you. This is a big deal , very similar circumstances yet totally different response . The ML photos were meant to convey a message of guilt to a stupid public . A photo op . Joey says " Well it was a locked garage " to explain it all away . Years of STOLEN docs he wasn't supposed to have , MSM just stfu about the disparity . At ML why didn't the FBI seal the boxes and haul them away and NOT do a staged photo op to sway public opinion ? You can't say it's SOP because it saf wasn't in Joey's case . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:45:36 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 56xdx_Z: Oof. Maybe he can put one of those Top Secret cover letters over the computer screen and pretend he's winning the argument underneath it  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:49:49 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Morlawn66: This is a big deal , very similar circumstances yet totally different response . The ML photos were meant to convey a message of guilt to a stupid public . A photo op . Joey says " Well it was a locked garage " to explain it all away . Years of STOLEN docs he wasn't supposed to have , MSM just stfu about the disparity . At ML why didn't the FBI seal the boxes and haul them away and NOT do a staged photo op to sway public opinion ? You can't say it's SOP because it saf wasn't in Joey's case . Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Morlawn66: Originally Posted By fargo007: But you don't have to even go there to see that there's a fundamental problem with the documents, and the evidentiary procedures here. The very same DOJ/FBI investigated Biden for this exact same thing. Biden's documents were of a more severe nature, stored in FAR less secure (multiple) locations, and yet there were no photographs taken of the boxes unpacked, and staged with other documents that the FBI brought with them. If that is what makes up the "lies, manipulation, and fact twisting," I'm absolutely with you. This is a big deal , very similar circumstances yet totally different response . The ML photos were meant to convey a message of guilt to a stupid public . A photo op . Joey says " Well it was a locked garage " to explain it all away . Years of STOLEN docs he wasn't supposed to have , MSM just stfu about the disparity . At ML why didn't the FBI seal the boxes and haul them away and NOT do a staged photo op to sway public opinion ? You can't say it's SOP because it saf wasn't in Joey's case . There are deep and rigid SOP's about how evidence is to be handled, including how photographs are to be taken of it. I would imagine that the FBI's SOP takes this to an even more rigid level, particularly where classified material is involved. And it's far from the only politically disparate treatment they have exercised. Look at how they rolled on Roger Stone. A hundred men in full military combat gear carrying machineguns, an armored vehicle, and even leaking it all so that they could have a friendly CNN camera crew across the street. All for a small guy in his mid 70's who was charged with nothing but process crimes. The usual way of handling this is to have his attorney produce him at a certain time and date. This documents raid at ML was every bit the same kind of propaganda stunt, where the rules change a lot depending on the political stance of who is involved. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 12:44:54 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Josh: That specifically is an odd one. 29 years working for the government and I've seen literally one single S/SCI document in all that time. It was such a strange classification no one in the room had ever seen it before. I'm glad someone mentioned this. I had a security clearance from 1990 to 2020 and have never heard of Secret SCI before. I only held a TS SCI for 4 of those years. My briefing many years ago to get the SCI level said SCI was specifically compartments of the TS classification. Maybe the FBI is different but during my 3 decades of refresher training on security clearances all of the feds have one standard for classifications. Also I originally thought the photos were suspect because when one page in a folder in marked TS then everything in the folder would have the highest classification cover sheet. So if there was a TS cover sheet why bother with a lower classification Secret/SCI sheet? David |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 1:11:27 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dwhitehorne: I'm glad someone mentioned this. I had a security clearance from 1990 to 2020 and have never heard of Secret SCI before. I only held a TS SCI for 4 of those years. My briefing many years ago to get the SCI level said SCI was specifically compartments of the TS classification. Maybe the FBI is different but during my 3 decades of refresher training on security clearances all of the feds have one standard for classifications. Also I originally thought the photos were suspect because when one page in a folder in marked TS then everything in the folder would have the highest classification cover sheet. So if there was a TS cover sheet why bother with a lower classification Secret/SCI sheet? David Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dwhitehorne: Originally Posted By Josh: That specifically is an odd one. 29 years working for the government and I've seen literally one single S/SCI document in all that time. It was such a strange classification no one in the room had ever seen it before. I'm glad someone mentioned this. I had a security clearance from 1990 to 2020 and have never heard of Secret SCI before. I only held a TS SCI for 4 of those years. My briefing many years ago to get the SCI level said SCI was specifically compartments of the TS classification. Maybe the FBI is different but during my 3 decades of refresher training on security clearances all of the feds have one standard for classifications. Also I originally thought the photos were suspect because when one page in a folder in marked TS then everything in the folder would have the highest classification cover sheet. So if there was a TS cover sheet why bother with a lower classification Secret/SCI sheet? David They're making up/changing their own rules as they go. Sound familiar? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 1:14:01 PM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 4:34:58 PM EDT
[#38]
And still our most rabid, foaming at the mouth N_T hasn't chimed in to gaslight everyone and turn this into a 22 page thread. Very telling.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 6:14:20 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By delemorte: It's not the single lie. It's the repeated lie after lie after lie. How many times could you be lied to by someone before the default response is, they are known liar's? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By delemorte: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Originally Posted By fargo007: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Regardless, the capability of the government to lie is a fucktarded reason to shut down your brain and just tribally align with just whatever narrative is being pushed your way. It's not reasoning, it's the surrender of reason. It's not the "capability" of the government to lie. It's become an extremely strong likelihood that they are lying, and it's no coincidence that the falsehoods all pull in the same direction. Especially with criminal cases, where the DOJ/FBI now has an extensive and well proven record of falsifying, altering, concealing, destroying, censoring discussion of, and of course lying outright about evidence. A reasonable person no longer extends what I would call "the presumption of regularity" to anything the federal government says, or does. The problem as I see it is when purportedly "reasonable persons" fail to see the lies, manipulation, and fact twisting in photos like shown in the OP and the videos in this thread. The desire to go "well, I can't trust anything entity A has said because they've lied to me before" just never seems to be consistently applied. It's not the single lie. It's the repeated lie after lie after lie. How many times could you be lied to by someone before the default response is, they are known liar's? The types of media sources people here in arf have been posting for decades are just that way. And, yet they persist. The claims in the OP are contradictory, yet they are blindly accepted. Why? |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 7:04:07 PM EDT
[#40]
ok Trum-bot.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 1:16:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Blaster]
[#41]
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. )You are beyond reaching. The government had no problem running with the Steele dossiere as a basis for securing a warrant from the FISA court, examination & fact checking be damned. Such "strenuous" analysis lends zero credibility to the government's ability or willingness to look for truth, let just being concerned with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 1:51:50 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Page six It's like an academic case study of how to not maintain chain of custody, written for 8th graders. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 2:34:20 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dwhitehorne: I'm glad someone mentioned this. I had a security clearance from 1990 to 2020 and have never heard of Secret SCI before. I only held a TS SCI for 4 of those years. My briefing many years ago to get the SCI level said SCI was specifically compartments of the TS classification. Maybe the FBI is different but during my 3 decades of refresher training on security clearances all of the feds have one standard for classifications. Also I originally thought the photos were suspect because when one page in a folder in marked TS then everything in the folder would have the highest classification cover sheet. So if there was a TS cover sheet why bother with a lower classification Secret/SCI sheet? David |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 3:56:04 AM EDT
[#44]
the stuff were allowed to see like this is all programming. all of it. they have to keep the false left-right wing paradigm from being noticed as 2 wings of the same bird thats been hijacked.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 7:43:47 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dwhitehorne: I'm glad someone mentioned this. I had a security clearance from 1990 to 2020 and have never heard of Secret SCI before. I only held a TS SCI for 4 of those years. My briefing many years ago to get the SCI level said SCI was specifically compartments of the TS classification. Maybe the FBI is different but during my 3 decades of refresher training on security clearances all of the feds have one standard for classifications. Also I originally thought the photos were suspect because when one page in a folder in marked TS then everything in the folder would have the highest classification cover sheet. So if there was a TS cover sheet why bother with a lower classification Secret/SCI sheet? David Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dwhitehorne: Originally Posted By Josh: That specifically is an odd one. 29 years working for the government and I've seen literally one single S/SCI document in all that time. It was such a strange classification no one in the room had ever seen it before. I'm glad someone mentioned this. I had a security clearance from 1990 to 2020 and have never heard of Secret SCI before. I only held a TS SCI for 4 of those years. My briefing many years ago to get the SCI level said SCI was specifically compartments of the TS classification. Maybe the FBI is different but during my 3 decades of refresher training on security clearances all of the feds have one standard for classifications. Also I originally thought the photos were suspect because when one page in a folder in marked TS then everything in the folder would have the highest classification cover sheet. So if there was a TS cover sheet why bother with a lower classification Secret/SCI sheet? David Saw it and S//SAR few times at the Pentagon. It is not normally because most just the route of over classifying |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 8:00:58 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: It's like an academic case study of how to not maintain chain of custody, written for 8th graders. Speaking of which, where is the sign-out sheet or digital log of who accessed the classified documents prior to them ending up in the boxes found at MAL? It is standard protocol to record who accessed these things, when they were accessed and for what purpose. I'd really like to know how they got in the boxes in the first place. I also want to see the documentation of the rigorous process they used when they seized FJB's stolen classified documents. I wonder if the FOIA could be used to get that info? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 8:21:53 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JCoop: Speaking of which, where is the sign-out sheet or digital log of who accessed the classified documents prior to them ending up in the boxes found at MAL? It is standard protocol to record who accessed these things, when they were accessed and for what purpose. I'd really like to know how they got in the boxes in the first place. I also want to see the documentation of the rigorous process they used when they seized FJB's stolen classified documents. I wonder if the FOIA could be used to get that info? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 12:03:56 PM EDT
[#48]
It’s all a hack job. But they will keep pushing it. Nothing to stop them. Even if Trump wins he will just complain on Twitter gaslighting his base to create fake stuff about how Trump is going to save the world. But nothing will happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 12:11:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: It's like an academic case study of how to not maintain chain of custody, written for 8th graders. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Page six It's like an academic case study of how to not maintain chain of custody, written for 8th graders. Here's the best quote from Smith's filing: "In many but not all instances, the FBI was able to determine which document with classification markings corresponded to a particular placeholder sheet..." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2024 7:49:36 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Here's the best quote from Smith's filing: "In many but not all instances, the FBI was able to determine which document with classification markings corresponded to a particular placeholder sheet..." Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Page six It's like an academic case study of how to not maintain chain of custody, written for 8th graders. Here's the best quote from Smith's filing: "In many but not all instances, the FBI was able to determine which document with classification markings corresponded to a particular placeholder sheet..." yikes. That suggests a whole lot of incompetence. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
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.
.jpg)
Attached File
