Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

Building plans?  That's what we're going with?  You're being interviewed by Meadows book writers about your relationship on national security matters and you wanted to show them a rendering for expanding the 19th hole at a New Jersey golf course?  Yeah, that checks out.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Dog said:

he keeps changing his story:

 

yeah, because we all know he keeps golf course plans top secret.  the guy has verbal diarrhea and if he was building a new resort or golf course he would be pimping it hard and it would be front and center

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He accused me of wanting to build a Trump Tower in Iraan, Texas. But look, look at these plans. They're incredible. Milley brought them to me. I'm totally vindicated. Listen, I never...oh, some classified NEWSPAPER ads, Fake News newspaper. They never tell you how I finished the wall. But...Listen, He brought blueprints for the building to me. It was his idea to build a Trump Tower in Iraan!

And that is your testimony, Mr. Trump?

Give me a few minutes.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Does it even matter? He isn't being charged with dissemination of the documents. 

Which is why it's funny he keeps changing the story on the contents of the documents he waved around on that tape, if they were even papers at all.  For some reason, he thinks the contents are the issue.  When in fact, most the legal foundation is "we found them after you lied about having them and then obstructed our retrieval of them."  The one smart move they made was last year calling it a "raid."  Even though it wasn't.  Now it's just shuffling deck chairs. 

The "How could I lie to the FBI about having the classified documents in my office which I clearly did, when everything i show everybody is about these lovely clubhouse upgrade renderings?" defense is a curious gambit.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Building plans?  That's what we're going with?  You're being interviewed by Meadows book writers about your relationship on national security matters and you wanted to show them a rendering for expanding the 19th hole at a New Jersey golf course?  Yeah, that checks out.  

Maybe the building plans are designs for mausoleums at his golf courses for Melanie, Junior, etc., when they meet their untimely demise? Burying secrets w/ Ivanka was easy enough, but now he'll have to dig 'em back up. Phase II is to have them kept in an environmentally controlled, tacky MAGA tomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Gotta hand it to Trump---the "I'm being indicted for you" line is pretty powerful.   Whatever members of the cult might have been wavering; the constant delivery of that line from him is effective at reminding them that he's on their side.  Never mind how fucking deplorable that side actually is.

 

 

Screenshot2023-06-28084249.png.cedd4a9893820727fb6695604d7029ba.png

 

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree, but it's hard not to chuckle in a gallows way at the stupidity of the people who buy this...all you have to do is just extend the thought/statement to it's obvious conclusion:

I'm being indicted for YOU...for stealing classified documents and obstructing their return. I DID THAT FOR YOU...he announces to a bunch of stupid fucks who have no need or desire for classified documents. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree, but it's hard not to chuckle in a gallows way at the stupidity of the people who buy this...all you have to do is just extend the thought/statement to it's obvious conclusion:

I'm being indicted for YOU...for stealing classified documents and obstructing their return. I DID THAT FOR YOU...he announces to a bunch of stupid fucks who have no need or desire for classified documents. 

I voted for Biden. I like him just fine. Long, long, LONG before he gets to the point to where he's saying "I'm committing felonies for you": 

 

Season 2 Whatever GIF by Curb Your Enthusiasm - Find & Share on GIPHY

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree, but it's hard not to chuckle in a gallows way at the stupidity of the people who buy this...all you have to do is just extend the thought/statement to it's obvious conclusion:

I'm being indicted for YOU...for stealing classified documents and obstructing their return. I DID THAT FOR YOU...he announces to a bunch of stupid fucks who have no need or desire for classified documents. 

Plus, it's not winning any new supporters.  Anyone who buys that nonsense was lost long ago.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brisketexan said:


“Developing?”
Dude. He’s had the “only I can save you” song since 2014.

Yeah did anyone forget this 2016 RNC speech? "I alone can fix it"

Motherfucker has been that for a while now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Gotta hand it to Trump---the "I'm being indicted for you" line is pretty powerful.   Whatever members of the cult might have been wavering; the constant delivery of that line from him is effective at reminding them that he's on their side.  Never mind how fucking deplorable that side actually is.

 

 

Screenshot2023-06-28084249.png.cedd4a9893820727fb6695604d7029ba.png

 

lol he wishes he was fake indicted. His problem of course is that he was real indicted 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


“Developing?”
Dude. He’s had the “only I can save you” song since 2014.


Yeah but now he's got the "sounds like Jesus"  "indicted for our sins"  line which will make him even more desirable to evangelicals.

"Martha, he's to be indicted for our sins, just like Jesus!"

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I'm enjoying most is that I think he is starting to understand he's in real jeopardy.  The increasingly frantic and impotent screeching to his base is just a bonus.

During the Obama years I always wondered how much more money the Rednecks had to keep buying ammo, That donor base of his has to tap out soon right?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rimbo said:

I mean, they ARE trying him for possession. Thirty counts in the indictment are "you had things you weren't supposed to have" charges.

And there's another handful for obstruction.

In similar, related, but different breeds, Legal Eagle had a great video on the sentencing possibilities:

Again, willfully took them.  

Not to beat a dead horse, but the fact that Biden was in possession of some things in this garage is not enough for a charge that he knowingly (willfully) took classified documents.  The elements to prove this classified document criminal violation are not like possession of a weapon that has the serial number filed off. If you have an altered firearm in that manner, if you have it, you are guilty. It makes no difference if you knew it or not, if you were involved, or if you were totally and innocently unaware. That is the type of possession criminal charge that is different than this statute. Here, the intent in knowing that classified documents were kept is a necessary element.  The 31 counts in the indictment say he “did willfully retain” the documents.    Not simple possession of them. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, locodos said:

The thing I'm enjoying most is that I think he is starting to understand he's in real jeopardy.  The increasingly frantic and impotent screeching to his base is just a bonus.

He will eventually get to a point where he literally directs his followers to attack the people persecuting him. Maybe at that point the judge will ask him nicely to not have Jack Smith and his family murdered. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


Yeah but now he's got the "sounds like Jesus"  "indicted for our sins"  line which will make him even more desirable to evangelicals.

"Martha, he's to be indicted for our sins, just like Jesus!"

He did claim to be The Chosen One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


Yeah but now he's got the "sounds like Jesus"  "indicted for our sins"  line which will make him even more desirable to evangelicals.

"Martha, he's to be indicted for our sins, just like Jesus!"

One of the more horrifying things I've learned since this pustule came on the scene is how many evangelicals we actually have in this country.  Fucking come on!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, locodos said:

The thing I'm enjoying most is that I think he is starting to understand he's in real jeopardy.  The increasingly frantic and impotent screeching to his base is just a bonus.

During the Obama years I always wondered how much more money the Rednecks had to keep buying ammo, That donor base of his has to tap out soon right?  

Those social security and disability checks come every month, they just stopped buying ammo and instead give it to dotard 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

Does it even matter? He isn't being charged with dissemination of the documents. 

Correct.

But if he keeps talking, he might talk himself into some new charges.

He's digging himself deeper and deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

One of the more horrifying things I've learned since this pustule came on the scene is how many evangelicals we actually have in this country.  Fucking come on!

I don't have a problem with evangelicals.

I have a problem with those who have abandoned anything resembling Christ in favor of Trump.

Which is, sadly, most of them. Once you require people to deny basic facts in order to be part of their club (evolutionary theory in particular, but anything from The Fundamentals - "you must accept these as true no matter what the facts say"), then you can get them to accept any lies you want.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

He will eventually get to a point where he literally directs his followers to attack the people persecuting him. Maybe at that point the judge will ask him nicely to not have Jack Smith and his family murdered

Unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I don't have a problem with evangelicals.

I have a problem with those who have abandoned anything resembling Christ in favor of Trump.

Which is, sadly, most of them. Once you require people to deny basic facts in order to be part of their club (evolutionary theory in particular, but anything from The Fundamentals - "you must accept these as true no matter what the facts say"), then you can get them to accept any lies you want.

Sagan said it best

"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder...."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, locodos said:

Sagan said it best

"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder...."

Great book. I recommend it to anyone.

But I'm not taking about unprovable claims. I'm talking about claims that have been proven to be objectively false, and requiring people to believe in them.

You can believe in God without accepting lies. But that's exactly what The Fundamentals demanded people do.

Edited by Rimbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Great book. I recommend it to anyone.

But I'm not taking about unprovable claims. I'm talking about claims that have been proven to be objectively false, and requiring people to believe in them.

You can believe in God without accepting lies. But that's exactly what The Fundamentals demanded people do.

It’s not even about truth and lies, really. The elegance of religion is that most of them have a god or gods that can do anything, so anything can be explained away.  But those are beliefs. It’s when beliefs become truths that problems really bloom.

A person can believe the world is 4000 years old all they want and write off evidence to the contrary as a test of faith.  But when they decide that is not a belief but the truth, then they start telling others that what they believe or know is false.  And usually there are consequences attached to believing such falsehoods. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It’s not even about truth and lies, really.

No. Incorrect. It is exactly about truth vs lies. It is about deliberately choosing to believe in things that are objectively false and rejecting things that are objectively true.

I'm not describing some overall philosophical objection to religion, which seems to be what the rest of your vague word salad mental masturbation seems to be about.

I'm talking very specifically about American Fundamentalist Christianity, starting more or less with the publication of The Fundamentals in the 1920s, leading up to people literally believing in Donald J Trump as the Second Coming of Christ (and I truly wish I was making that up). And how we got to this point, where someone who is in nearly every conceivable way the opposite of what Christ stood for became a holy warrior for nominal Christians.

If you want to object to Christianity or religion in general, this is not the thread for it, and I'm not the person you want to argue with. There are plenty of Christians who find Trump to be appalling and anti-Christian; I go to church with them.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, South Austin said:

And when Trump is questioned about whether there was a transfer order, and whether Santiago was in fact going anywhere, the judge will overrule the objection but state that the objection is noted.

But what if it’s a strenuous objection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2023 at 8:04 PM, Irwin F Fletcher said:
On 6/27/2023 at 7:09 PM, Slacks said:
This is what I expected his defense to be. 
No video evidence means no evidence. 
The recording becomes nothing but public discourse. 

Except for all that first hand witness testimony.

So they're going to say they saw the document and can, without question, recall what exactly level of class it was... And they'll say 'I believe it said Top Secret' (they won't say they know for sure, because of they're wrong, it's potentially perjury.) 

And the cross examining defense lawyer is going to ask them what the title of the document was, and they won't recall... And there won't be a way to validate what they believe they saw. 

Burden of proof will have failed. 

I am not a lawyer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did not read thread. ban username
LSU just scored Again as well. Rough week?


(Was rooting for Gator, despite all my Coon Ass kin, I tend to root for schools with higher literacy rates, and Florida is going to be one of the few " what you reading for" peers in the SEC.)
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

You could also read that post like he's blaming his supporters. "You guys enabled me to break the law with impunity now I'm screwed. Nice work, hayseeds!"

That's entirely too nuanced.   Both for Trump to be make and for his followers to even remotely understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • blacklab changed the title to 45 indicated


×
×
  • Create New...