The Biden Administration..V3

149,035 Views | 3158 Replies | Last: 6 min ago by TheStorm
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Packchem91 said:

Oldsouljer said:

Judging from the background light, I thought he was giving the speech at the Bell Tower on Hillsborough with the red lights on.
I've seen the images, and they are bad. Very bad. Like, did no one on his staff plan out what that might look like. Heck with Bell Tower, it did look more Kremlin'ish.

Now...as for content, i'll hold off til i read the transcript, but the raised fists and backdrop made me think of Dwight's speech to the paper salesmen of NE-PA on The Office (though he didn't have the red backdrop)

The imagery was bad.

His administration feels inexperienced, like they've got too many young high-energy staffers and big idea people, but not nearly enough savvy, experienced, boots on the ground operators.

The tone of the messaging was definitely different with this speech. Seems clear they see some fracturing in the right post-Dobbs and are attempting to drive the wedge deeper and widen the crack between MAGA pubs and the rest.
nope, they want the midterms to be a referendum on Trump and not Biden. The best thing that can be done is to ignore the bait
100% absolutely. Much easier to fire up the base by re-invoking the risk that is Trump instead of focusing on the economy.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Packchem91 said:

Oldsouljer said:

Judging from the background light, I thought he was giving the speech at the Bell Tower on Hillsborough with the red lights on.
I've seen the images, and they are bad. Very bad. Like, did no one on his staff plan out what that might look like. Heck with Bell Tower, it did look more Kremlin'ish.

Now...as for content, i'll hold off til i read the transcript, but the raised fists and backdrop made me think of Dwight's speech to the paper salesmen of NE-PA on The Office (though he didn't have the red backdrop)

The imagery was bad.

His administration feels inexperienced, like they've got too many young high-energy staffers and big idea people, but not nearly enough savvy, experienced, boots on the ground operators.

The tone of the messaging was definitely different with this speech. Seems clear they see some fracturing in the right post-Dobbs and are attempting to drive the wedge deeper and widen the crack between MAGA pubs and the rest.
nope, they want the midterms to be a referendum on Trump and not Biden. The best thing that can be done is to ignore the bait


Whether or not this strategy has the electoral impacts they intend has yet to be seen but they're likely correct that much of the portion of the right that have tethered themselves to Trump will be incapable of ignoring it.
it absolutely has electoral impacts. The Democratic National Committee spent almost $50M on MAGA candidates over more moderate ones.
Marco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Tonight,i say this to my republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible.There will a day when Donald Trump is gone,but your dishonor will remain"Liz Cheney-6/2/2022!!!!!
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Packchem91 said:

Oldsouljer said:

Judging from the background light, I thought he was giving the speech at the Bell Tower on Hillsborough with the red lights on.
I've seen the images, and they are bad. Very bad. Like, did no one on his staff plan out what that might look like. Heck with Bell Tower, it did look more Kremlin'ish.

Now...as for content, i'll hold off til i read the transcript, but the raised fists and backdrop made me think of Dwight's speech to the paper salesmen of NE-PA on The Office (though he didn't have the red backdrop)

The imagery was bad.

His administration feels inexperienced, like they've got too many young high-energy staffers and big idea people, but not nearly enough savvy, experienced, boots on the ground operators.

The tone of the messaging was definitely different with this speech. Seems clear they see some fracturing in the right post-Dobbs and are attempting to drive the wedge deeper and widen the crack between MAGA pubs and the rest.
nope, they want the midterms to be a referendum on Trump and not Biden. The best thing that can be done is to ignore the bait


Whether or not this strategy has the electoral impacts they intend has yet to be seen but they're likely correct that much of the portion of the right that have tethered themselves to Trump will be incapable of ignoring it.
it absolutely has electoral impacts. The Democratic National Committee spent almost $50M on MAGA candidates over more moderate ones.

Yep.

High-risk strategy, and does the upside warrant the risk? How much of a benefit for Dems is it, really, to run against MAGA candidates vs. more moderate Pubs?

Seems like they're hitching their cart to the "MAGA is definitely a losing strategy wagon," but what is that based on, really?

A narrow win in the 2020 presidential election?
The post-Dobbs general trend?
Trump seeming to falter a little in recent polling?

That all feels iffy.

And the obvious risk is that the MAGA candidates actually get elected. Doesn't seem to me that the prospective marginal return warrants the risk.
jkpackfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

jkpackfan said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

packgrad said:

Truly mind blowing how one could ask what they would make you comply with. Lol. From a self proclaimed independent too.

Obviously you don't know what he's referring to either.


Obviously that doesn't stop yourself and some of the other folks who hate Trump from making insinuations on what he meant or was referring to.

Thanks Steve, but my post literally had zero to do with Trump so not sure why you're bringing it up.

He was triggered by Biden's speech and thinks he may have to submit to or comply with something Biden or his administration are going to enact.

My question is, what is he thinking he is going to have to submit to?
So you have no problem with that disgusting speech basically labeling a big portion of America as terrorists?? Can only imagine what you and your ilk would saying on here had that same speech come from Trump.

LOL that same speech did come from Trump, over and over. The man was a walking, talking insult.

But you don't see me supporting Biden on here. I've said repeatedly on here that he sucks.
Lol sure
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Packchem91 said:

Oldsouljer said:

Judging from the background light, I thought he was giving the speech at the Bell Tower on Hillsborough with the red lights on.
I've seen the images, and they are bad. Very bad. Like, did no one on his staff plan out what that might look like. Heck with Bell Tower, it did look more Kremlin'ish.

Now...as for content, i'll hold off til i read the transcript, but the raised fists and backdrop made me think of Dwight's speech to the paper salesmen of NE-PA on The Office (though he didn't have the red backdrop)

The imagery was bad.

His administration feels inexperienced, like they've got too many young high-energy staffers and big idea people, but not nearly enough savvy, experienced, boots on the ground operators.

The tone of the messaging was definitely different with this speech. Seems clear they see some fracturing in the right post-Dobbs and are attempting to drive the wedge deeper and widen the crack between MAGA pubs and the rest.
nope, they want the midterms to be a referendum on Trump and not Biden. The best thing that can be done is to ignore the bait


Whether or not this strategy has the electoral impacts they intend has yet to be seen but they're likely correct that much of the portion of the right that have tethered themselves to Trump will be incapable of ignoring it.
it absolutely has electoral impacts. The Democratic National Committee spent almost $50M on MAGA candidates over more moderate ones.

Yep.

High-risk strategy, and does the upside warrant the risk? How much of a benefit for Dems is it, really, to run against MAGA candidates vs. more moderate Pubs?

Seems like they're hitching their cart to the "MAGA is definitely a losing strategy wagon," but what is that based on, really?

A narrow win in the 2020 presidential election?
The post-Dobbs general trend?
Trump seeming to falter a little in recent polling?

That all feels iffy.

And the obvious risk is that the MAGA candidates actually get elected. Doesn't seem to me that the prospective marginal return warrants the risk.
All the above plus it shows their rhetoric is empty. Again, Democrats lie most of the time.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackFansXL said:

Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Packchem91 said:

Oldsouljer said:

Judging from the background light, I thought he was giving the speech at the Bell Tower on Hillsborough with the red lights on.
I've seen the images, and they are bad. Very bad. Like, did no one on his staff plan out what that might look like. Heck with Bell Tower, it did look more Kremlin'ish.

Now...as for content, i'll hold off til i read the transcript, but the raised fists and backdrop made me think of Dwight's speech to the paper salesmen of NE-PA on The Office (though he didn't have the red backdrop)

The imagery was bad.

His administration feels inexperienced, like they've got too many young high-energy staffers and big idea people, but not nearly enough savvy, experienced, boots on the ground operators.

The tone of the messaging was definitely different with this speech. Seems clear they see some fracturing in the right post-Dobbs and are attempting to drive the wedge deeper and widen the crack between MAGA pubs and the rest.
nope, they want the midterms to be a referendum on Trump and not Biden. The best thing that can be done is to ignore the bait


Whether or not this strategy has the electoral impacts they intend has yet to be seen but they're likely correct that much of the portion of the right that have tethered themselves to Trump will be incapable of ignoring it.
it absolutely has electoral impacts. The Democratic National Committee spent almost $50M on MAGA candidates over more moderate ones.

Yep.

High-risk strategy, and does the upside warrant the risk? How much of a benefit for Dems is it, really, to run against MAGA candidates vs. more moderate Pubs?

Seems like they're hitching their cart to the "MAGA is definitely a losing strategy wagon," but what is that based on, really?

A narrow win in the 2020 presidential election?
The post-Dobbs general trend?
Trump seeming to falter a little in recent polling?

That all feels iffy.

And the obvious risk is that the MAGA candidates actually get elected. Doesn't seem to me that the prospective marginal return warrants the risk.
All the above plus it shows their rhetoric is empty. Again, Democrats lie most of the time.
all of the rhetoric from bothe sides has been empty
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To what are you referring, hokie?
How have the Republicans been "empty"?
Marco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MAGA=Make Attorneys Get Attorneys!!!!
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackFansXL said:

To what are you referring, hokie?
How have the Republicans been "empty"?
i consider stolen election stuff and the likes of BBW types saying everyone's a Marxist as empty rhetoric.
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

PackFansXL said:

To what are you referring, hokie?
How have the Republicans been "empty"?
i consider stolen election stuff and the likes of BBW types saying everyone's a Marxist as empty rhetoric.


How about "we're starting to see what people from communist countries did" or "we need to secede ". Lol
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

PackFansXL said:

To what are you referring, hokie?
How have the Republicans been "empty"?
i consider stolen election stuff and the likes of BBW types saying everyone's a Marxist as empty rhetoric.
BBW is not a spokesman for the Republican party.

It has now become standard operating procedure for leaders and spokesmen for either party to claim their election losses were stolen. See recent tweets from Biden's new press secretary claiming Republicans stole the GA Gov election from Abrams.

I find a great deal of difference between petulant whining about election losses and brazenly referring to legitimate election laws as Jim Crowe on steroids.

I find a great deal of difference between wailing on idiotic Democratic policies and perpetuating the myth of systemic racism in America.

On top of the long history of lies from this POTUS, the world was subjected to one of the most embarrassing, brazen, and dishonest speeches by a sitting POTUS in history.

Republicans are nothing like Democrats right now! Biden is a fool and a liar who deserves to be impeached.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackFansXL said:

hokiewolf said:

PackFansXL said:

To what are you referring, hokie?
How have the Republicans been "empty"?
i consider stolen election stuff and the likes of BBW types saying everyone's a Marxist as empty rhetoric.
BBW is not a spokesman for the Republican party.

It has now become standard operating procedure for leaders and spokesmen for either party to claim their election losses were stolen. See recent tweets from Biden's new press secretary claiming Republicans stole the GA Gov election from Abrams.

I find a great deal of difference between petulant whining about election losses and brazenly referring to legitimate election laws as Jim Crowe on steroids.

I find a great deal of difference between wailing on idiotic Democratic policies and perpetuating the myth of systemic racism in America.

On top of the long history of lies from this POTUS, the world was subjected to one of the most embarrassing, brazen, and dishonest speeches by a sitting POTUS in history.

Republicans are nothing like Democrats right now! Biden is a fool and a liar who deserves to be impeached.

It's very hard to overstate the myriad symbolic and practical problems posed by a sitting US President, the most powerful democratically elected leader in the world, refusing to say he would ensure a peaceful transition of power and then attempting to coerce his Vice President to not certify the election results and then sitting on his hands while his band of merry loons rioted/insurrected at the Capitol.

Especially when it was always patently obvious the whole Stop the Steal derangement was complete bull**** perpetrated by a man-baby just because he never learned how to lose when he was a child.

And no, that madness does not in any way compare to other non-President election losers with zero power complaining about election results. They have a fraction of the power or impact of a sitting President that is the active head of this country.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assuming you are a white male, do you appreciate the sitting President of your country calling you a RACIST?
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackFansXL said:

Assuming you are a white male, do you appreciate the sitting President of your country calling you a RACIST?


We know the sitting President is unfit for office. Hopefully he's not President again.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.

Trump had three chances to return the privileged and confidential and top secret documents and couldn't, or wouldn't; his attorney lied and said he'd returned them all; and his team wouldn't let the FBI search his storeroom when they were there earlier this summer.

A federal judge found probable cause to issue the warrant.

What exactly do you think should have happened next, instead?

Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackFansXL said:

Assuming you are a white male, do you appreciate the sitting President of your country calling you a RACIST?



When did he do this?

Not arguing it, just interested in when / where? It would be horrible if he did
DrummerboyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is great!

https://truthsocial.com/@Q/posts/108931423962109770
Being an N. C. State Fan Builds Great Character
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.


Correct. That's why I don't waste my time.
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?


He should've just destroyed the evidence I guess, right? Then the FBI would've just turned the other way and said nothing to see!

It doesn't matter how many times they've asked. They will keep asking and looking until they find what they're looking for. I'm convinced they don't know what they're looking for. But, I'm 100% sure they'll know when they find it.

How many times should they ask?
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?


He should've just destroyed the evidence I guess, right? Then the FBI would've just turned the other way and said nothing to see!

It doesn't matter how many times they've asked. They will keep asking and looking until they find what they're looking for. I'm convinced they don't know what they're looking for. But, I'm 100% sure they'll know when they find it.

How many times should they ask?


I think they did find it. They were two for two as I understand it.
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?


He should've just destroyed the evidence I guess, right? Then the FBI would've just turned the other way and said nothing to see!

It doesn't matter how many times they've asked. They will keep asking and looking until they find what they're looking for. I'm convinced they don't know what they're looking for. But, I'm 100% sure they'll know when they find it.

How many times should they ask?


I think they did find it. They were two for two as I understand it.



If that's the case, why are they seeking obstruction charges?
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?


He should've just destroyed the evidence I guess, right? Then the FBI would've just turned the other way and said nothing to see!

It doesn't matter how many times they've asked. They will keep asking and looking until they find what they're looking for. I'm convinced they don't know what they're looking for. But, I'm 100% sure they'll know when they find it.

How many times should they ask?


I think they did find it. They were two for two as I understand it.



If that's the case, why are they seeking obstruction charges?


Based on what one can tell from the published stories, as Civil pointed out but you and PG just chastised him, because Trumps attorneys lied? And they moved stuff?
In what world is that not obstruction?
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Biden and his administration have made countless references to the myth of "systemic racism in America".

Here is one of dozens of dishonest comments made by the Liar in Chief.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?


He should've just destroyed the evidence I guess, right? Then the FBI would've just turned the other way and said nothing to see!

It doesn't matter how many times they've asked. They will keep asking and looking until they find what they're looking for. I'm convinced they don't know what they're looking for. But, I'm 100% sure they'll know when they find it.

How many times should they ask?
I think it was said that some don't know what they are saying…
The Administrative State - Rise of the Fourth Reich!!
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?


He should've just destroyed the evidence I guess, right? Then the FBI would've just turned the other way and said nothing to see!

It doesn't matter how many times they've asked. They will keep asking and looking until they find what they're looking for. I'm convinced they don't know what they're looking for. But, I'm 100% sure they'll know when they find it.

How many times should they ask?


I think they did find it. They were two for two as I understand it.



If that's the case, why are they seeking obstruction charges?


Based on what one can tell from the published stories, as Civil pointed out but you and PG just chastised him, because Trumps attorneys lied? And they moved stuff?
In what world is that not obstruction?


He moved stuff from his folder to his desk, and that's obstruction? Should he have just destroyed it? Or, would that be also considered obstruction? Asking for a friend.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?


He should've just destroyed the evidence I guess, right? Then the FBI would've just turned the other way and said nothing to see!

It doesn't matter how many times they've asked. They will keep asking and looking until they find what they're looking for. I'm convinced they don't know what they're looking for. But, I'm 100% sure they'll know when they find it.

How many times should they ask?


I think they did find it. They were two for two as I understand it.



If that's the case, why are they seeking obstruction charges?


Based on what one can tell from the published stories, as Civil pointed out but you and PG just chastised him, because Trumps attorneys lied? And they moved stuff?
In what world is that not obstruction?
NOBODY cares about those documents! Watch as the complaints continues to change…
The Administrative State - Rise of the Fourth Reich!!
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackFansXL said:

Biden and his administration have made countless references to the myth of "systemic racism in America".

Here is one of dozens of dishonest comments made by the Liar in Chief.


I'm sorry, what is wrong with that Reuters article? Racism does still persist. Huge improvements, but it still exists. I didn't see where he said you or I as white males are racist, I saw where he said there are still some systemic issues.
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?


He should've just destroyed the evidence I guess, right? Then the FBI would've just turned the other way and said nothing to see!

It doesn't matter how many times they've asked. They will keep asking and looking until they find what they're looking for. I'm convinced they don't know what they're looking for. But, I'm 100% sure they'll know when they find it.

How many times should they ask?


I think they did find it. They were two for two as I understand it.



If that's the case, why are they seeking obstruction charges?


Based on what one can tell from the published stories, as Civil pointed out but you and PG just chastised him, because Trumps attorneys lied? And they moved stuff?
In what world is that not obstruction?


He moved stuff from his folder to his desk, and that's obstruction? Should he have just destroyed it? Or, would that be also considered obstruction? Asking for a friend.


Time will tell, but like you are disinclined to believe his caustic words on Jan 6 caused any issues, I'm sure you'll be disinclined to believe did anything wrong with the confidential docs

But his attorneys did swear he had no more, yet more were found
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?


He should've just destroyed the evidence I guess, right? Then the FBI would've just turned the other way and said nothing to see!

It doesn't matter how many times they've asked. They will keep asking and looking until they find what they're looking for. I'm convinced they don't know what they're looking for. But, I'm 100% sure they'll know when they find it.

How many times should they ask?


I think they did find it. They were two for two as I understand it.



If that's the case, why are they seeking obstruction charges?


Based on what one can tell from the published stories, as Civil pointed out but you and PG just chastised him, because Trumps attorneys lied? And they moved stuff?
In what world is that not obstruction?
NOBODY cares about those documents! Watch as the complaints continues to change…


Let's be honest though…what you really mean is "nobody cares when it's our guy", but if it's your guy, then "lock her up"
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?


He should've just destroyed the evidence I guess, right? Then the FBI would've just turned the other way and said nothing to see!

It doesn't matter how many times they've asked. They will keep asking and looking until they find what they're looking for. I'm convinced they don't know what they're looking for. But, I'm 100% sure they'll know when they find it.

How many times should they ask?


I think they did find it. They were two for two as I understand it.



If that's the case, why are they seeking obstruction charges?


Based on what one can tell from the published stories, as Civil pointed out but you and PG just chastised him, because Trumps attorneys lied? And they moved stuff?
In what world is that not obstruction?


He moved stuff from his folder to his desk, and that's obstruction? Should he have just destroyed it? Or, would that be also considered obstruction? Asking for a friend.


Time will tell, but like you are disinclined to believe his caustic words on Jan 6 caused any issues, I'm sure you'll be disinclined to believe did anything wrong with the confidential docs

But his attorneys did swear he had no more, yet more were found


Again you bring Jan 6 into an argument where it's not included. As I asked the other day, show me where I've said Trump or his lawyers didn't do anything wrong. Please!

The fact is that you nor I know what they found. You don't know if the documents were classified, you don't know if they were declassified, you don't know. The media is frothing at the mouth to see him in handcuffs. If they had even a chance of espionage, obstruction wouldn't even be considered right now.
Packchem91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Packchem91 said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

The current president is complicit in the investigation of the former president and civ is crying about peaceful transfer of power from TTTTRRRUUUMMMPPP. Fakest independent on here.


You can discuss it all you want, he won't see it. It's a blind spot built from utter hatred.

I notice neither of y'all are telling me what action was appropriate after Trump had 18 months to return all the docs, failed at it three times, and his attorney lied about having retuned all of them.

What then?


He should've just destroyed the evidence I guess, right? Then the FBI would've just turned the other way and said nothing to see!

It doesn't matter how many times they've asked. They will keep asking and looking until they find what they're looking for. I'm convinced they don't know what they're looking for. But, I'm 100% sure they'll know when they find it.

How many times should they ask?


I think they did find it. They were two for two as I understand it.



If that's the case, why are they seeking obstruction charges?


Based on what one can tell from the published stories, as Civil pointed out but you and PG just chastised him, because Trumps attorneys lied? And they moved stuff?
In what world is that not obstruction?


He moved stuff from his folder to his desk, and that's obstruction? Should he have just destroyed it? Or, would that be also considered obstruction? Asking for a friend.


Time will tell, but like you are disinclined to believe his caustic words on Jan 6 caused any issues, I'm sure you'll be disinclined to believe did anything wrong with the confidential docs

But his attorneys did swear he had no more, yet more were found


Again you bring Jan 6 into an argument where it's not included. As I asked the other day, show me where I've said Trump or his lawyers didn't do anything wrong. Please!

The fact is that you nor I know what they found. You don't know if the documents were classified, you don't know if they were declassified, you don't know. The media is frothing at the mouth to see him in handcuffs. If they had even a chance of espionage, obstruction wouldn't even be considered right now.


Kinda frustrating when posters dismiss your comments because of previous ones isn't it (like you do with Civil, Hokies or my negative posts about Trump, as if you have to hate the guy to find fault in his actions).

He's not going to end up in jail. Of course it's political. That doesn't mean it's not another black mark against him…or not yet another sign he doesn't care about you or me or any other person than himself and his cronies. .i just get amazed how much some of you guys will bend over for him.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.