Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Saintamaniac]

I tag FullMonte, and Saintamaniac immediately appears.

And you still end up being wrong. I have posted in this thread so I get alerts when someone has posted something new in it. I check my alerts to see what new bullshirt you may have posted...just like now.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I tag FullMonte, and Saintamaniac immediately appears.

This group has been posting together for a long time. I think I am one of the newer members, and I've been part of the group for 5 or 6 years. Do you want to know why you've "seen plenty of nastiness" on this board? It's because, as MT pointed out, you approach everything with an abundance of emotion and a nearly complete lack of facts. You were treated with respect when you first joined. People pushed back on your stances for obvious reasons, but nobody was nasty (to my recollection). The more you post, though, the more you come across as a troll. Your posts became condescending and your tone grew uglier. Then you started to misname people on the board. Now you have begun to accuse other posters of being liars. You are getting out of this board exactly what you are putting into it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This group has been posting together for a long time. I think I am one of the newer members, and I've been part of the group for 5 or 6 years. Do you want to know why you've "seen plenty of nastiness" on this board? It's because, as MT pointed out, you approach everything with an abundance of emotion and a nearly complete lack of facts. You were treated with respect when you first joined. People pushed back on your stances for obvious reasons, but nobody was nasty (to my recollection). The more you post, though, the more you come across as a troll. Your posts became condescending and your tone grew uglier. Then you started to misname people on the board. Now you have begun to accuse other posters of being liars. You are getting out of this board exactly what you are putting into it.

I was very respectful when I first started posting. I have continued to be respectful. I believe that some posters on here perceived any support for a candidate that they oppose to be disrespectful to themselves. I cannot help that.

The responses I get have ranged from respectful disagreement to substance-free name calling, with much in-between.

I'm not complaining about any of it, it is fully expected when a Trump supporter posts on a board on which the group has been posting together for a long time and has negative feelings about Trump.

I only mentioned it to superchuck to point out that my nastiness that he perceived was at least directed at a public figure, not at other posters. I understand that you could not resist the opportunity to name call and otherwise vent your own hostility.

As to mixing up names, it was never done deliberately. The name I accidently called you is a perfectly natural mistake given your actual screen name and the same for the one other poster whose name I mixed up.

If seeing an old man mix up someone's name infuriates you that much, you would go apoplectic if you saw me and others at one of our family gatherings.

 

[DaveXA]

Do y'all really call them "alts?"

Yes, I believe some people use sock puppets when they debate with me. I don't care, though, it's all in good fun, as far as I'm concerned. The TOS only "frowns on" the practice, so they are not in violation, and if it were, I still wouldn't care.

Only reason I mention it is that I have a flaw in my personality in that I don't like for people to think that they are fooling me so I feel compelled to call them out. This most recent one with FullMonte and Saint-whatever is one of the most obvious that I've ever seen.

In fact, @FullMonte consider yourself off ignore. I don't want you to need to bother with another one.

The board doesn't just frown on it. Any alts will get denied entry, or in the event someone figures out an end around, they'll get banned. If you're aware of an alt, report the poster(s), otherwise stop bringing it up.

 

[FullMonte]

I tag FullMonte, and Saintamaniac immediately appears.

Let's see. I joined this board 4 years ago, shortly after it started.....and I've been a member of the parent board for over 20 years.

During that time, I've had exactly ZERO issue with mixing it up with people, and debating any topics. Have you seen ANYTHING from me here to indicate that I would use a second name to converse with you?

The only reason I stopped posting here is because you stated you were ignoring me, so I assumed that meant we were done.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The board doesn't just frown on it. Any alts will get denied entry, or in the event someone figures out an end around, they'll get banned. If you're aware of an alt, report the poster(s), otherwise stop bringing it up.

Sir . . . I have no obligation to follow your instructions on what to post about and what not to post about.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Let's see. I joined this board 4 years ago, shortly after it started.....and I've been a member of the parent board for over 20 years.

During that time, I've had exactly ZERO issue with mixing it up with people, and debating any topics. Have you seen ANYTHING from me here to indicate that I would use a second name to converse with you?

The only reason I stopped posting here is because you stated you were ignoring me, so I assumed that meant we were done.

My perception that saintamananiac is your sock comes from his immediate and wordy post right after I said that I was ignoring you. I don't care if you use a sock or not other than what I mentioned above and admitted was a flaw in my personality.

I enjoy discussing issues with you, if you don't veer into personal insults, which as far as I know was a one-time thing with you. There are posters with whom 90% of their comments to me are personal attacks. I'm more tolerant of them, because I understand that is likely the extent of their capabilities.

If you ever want to get back to politics, I'm here for nine more days.

 

[DaveXA]

Sir . . . I have no obligation to follow your instructions on what to post about and what not to post about.

If you want to get banned for continually stirring the pot about imaginary alts, I'm not gonna stop you.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

My perception that saintamananiac is your sock comes from his immediate and wordy post right after I said that I was ignoring you. I don't care if you use a sock or not other than what I mentioned above and admitted was a flaw in my personality.

I enjoy discussing issues with you, if you don't veer into personal insults, which as far as I know was a one-time thing with you. There are posters with whom 90% of their comments to me are personal attacks. I'm more tolerant of them, because I understand that is likely the extent of their capabilities.

If you ever want to get back to politics, I'm here for nine more days.

This is what I mean. Everyone gave you the courtesy of responding to your arguments in a respectful manner when you first started posting. As your posts become personal, so did the responses. This post is a prime example of how condescending you act toward others. If you want to post that way, that's on you. Don't blame us for your attitude, though.

 

[Lapaz]

The board doesn't just frown on it. Any alts will get denied entry, or in the event someone figures out an end around, they'll get banned. If you're aware of an alt, report the poster(s), otherwise stop bringing it up.

Sack has accused several posters of having multiple screen names. He used the term sock puppets with me. I ignored his accusations toward me. I don’t know nor care about his motives, but I suggest everyone ignore those accusations and just address substantive elements of his posts. Addressing those accusations diverts attention from discussing substantive topics.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This is what I mean. Everyone gave you the courtesy of responding to your arguments in a respectful manner when you first started posting. As your posts become personal, so did the responses. This post is a prime example of how condescending you act toward others. If you want to post that way, that's on you. Don't blame us for your attitude, though.

Here is the earlliest of my posts on this board that i can find. It is dated June 10th and I first joined on June 9th.

I've seen these ideas from many Democrats, that Republican leaders secretly are happy for Trump to be indicted since it serves their own political ends. They are correct about that.

I keep waiting for them to connect the dots that it is not only Republicans, but also Democrats who of course would benefit politically from a Trump conviction that bars him from office. That includes the Republicans and Democrats in charge of the DOJ and the FBI. Do they really believe that the Republicans are evil and completely politically motivated, while the Democrats are just these white knights interested only in truth, justice and all that stuff?

When Hillary kept thousands of classified documents and refused to return them, eventually physically destroying servers and devices, she was not indicted even after James Comey listed her crimes in front of the nation. Clinton was the epitome of the Washington establishment, much more so that Bill.

Get rid of Trump and get back to business as usual is the goal. I believe that it was his talk of stopping the killing in Ukraine in 24 hours that was the last straw. The killing in Ukraine is very lucrative, and now there is talk of more tanks and planes. Trump would barbecue that cash cow, and that would be bad for the sponsors of the two parties.

Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case )

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process. Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads...

madaboutpolitics.com

What do you see in that post that is disrespectful to any poster on this board? If you click on that link and scroll down, you will see responses like this:

"Lock her up!". Buttery males. Benghazi.

Do you mean the target of the investigation has little room to stop or hinder the investigation? Oh no, the horrors...

As my suspicions are confirmed. The persecuted, everyone else does it, and everyone is out to get me persona appears . That explains the detachment from reality.

And forgive me if I don't believe your bogus outrage about a double standard

You don't care for the double standards. It's only an outrage that trump is caught and held accountable for withholding national secrets.

Do you live in reality?

dd to that, there were ZERO leaks from Smith's investigation, despite what worshipers of trump would say. The only comments regarding the investigation came from its target.

Did you read the citation or are your info from your assumptions? Do you understand email chains? Do you understand the vast difference between replying to an email that someone included vs hoarding vast national security secrets and a conspiracy to withhold it from the government?

That is from the first two pages after my first post on the board. I didn't complain, I just responded in kind. I'm not complaining now, I'm just refuting your assertion that I was given the courtesy of being responded to in a respectful manner.

What I see happening on here is that a person of differing beliefs is treated so disrespectfully that they leave, so most of the time you simply post invective against political figures and agree with each other. Then when someone does come along that supports a candidate you don't - especially Trump - everyone want to take their shots, and it looks like a gang beatdown.

But I have no problem with it, becuase I am easily able to absorb the blows and give them right back. If you complain when I do that, I'm just going to laugh and invite you to ignore me.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sack has accused several posters of having multiple screen names. He used the term sock puppets with me. I ignored his accusations toward me. I don’t know nor care about his motives, but I suggest everyone ignore those accusations and just address substantive elements of his posts. Addressing those accusations diverts attention from discussing substantive topics.

Thank you, and I will avoid calling out socks in the future if that would help for us to talk about the issues.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Here is the earlliest of my posts on this board that i can find. It is dated June 10th and I first joined on June 9th.

Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case )

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process. Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads...

madaboutpolitics.com

What do you see in that post that is disrespectful to any poster on this board? If you click on that link and scroll down, you will see responses like this:

















That is from the first two pages after my first post on the board. I didn't complain, I just responded in kind. I'm not complaining now, I'm just refuting your assertion that I was given the courtesy of being responded to in a respectful manner.

What I see happening on here is that a person of differing beliefs is treated so disrespectfully that they leave, so most of the time you simply post invective against political figures and agree with each other. Then when someone does come along that supports a candidate you don't - especially Trump - everyone want to take their shots, and it looks like a gang beatdown.

But I have no problem with it, becuase I am easily able to absorb the blows and give them right back. If you complain when I do that, I'm just going to laugh and invite you to ignore me.

You are right. I just re-read that post. I remembered you coming in much more restrained than that. The responses you got were pretty much what should have been expected. But I also know that people have tried to explain the differences between the Clinton and Trump situations and you not only refuse to believe it, you claim that the FBI and Comey- the same FBI and Comey that announced the reopening of the investigation into her a week before the 2016 election while keeping silent about the ongoing investigation into Trump- were trying to help her.

Everything you post is a ridiculous mishmash of contradictory positions, a complete lack of understanding on nearly every topic, and a firm belief that your opinions carry the same weight as contradictory facts and evidence all wrapped up in a condescending tone. People have tried to have honest conversations with you. I've tried. The only person involved that hasn't tried is you.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Corruption in the FBI is nothing new, and since the death J. Edgar, the DOJ cannot plausibly claim to not be in charge of the FBI. The FBI is probably one of the most un-American organizations in the world, and definitely the agency in the U.S. Government who is most opposed to individual rights and democracy.

These are the people that have taken it upon themselves to try to remove one of the two frontrunners in a presidential election that is less than a year and a half away.

Idaho GOP Wants to Ban FBI - Leading Report

The Idaho Republican Party recently passed a resolution denouncing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)...

theleadingreport.com

(Challis, Idaho) — In a surprising and unprecedented move, the Idaho Republican Party has taken a strong stance against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), by passing a resolution a condemning the “corrupt government agency” and calling for its abolition if it is deemed that the agency cannot be reformed.

The resolution passed unanimously out of the body which is comprised of 216 elected Republican representatives, contained a laundry list of excesses, abuses, and unconstitutional overreaches which the resolution alleges has “undermined the trust that the American people have in their government.”


The resolution outlines some of the most egregious of these abuses, COINTELPRO, a counter intelligence program carried out by the FBI between 1956 and 1971 which “illegally surveilled, infiltrated, and disrupted civil rights activists, political dissidents, and other individuals considered a threat to national security.”

Even the ACLU has condemned COINTELPRO, saying “intrusive surveillance tools originally developed to target Soviet spies are increasingly being used against Americans.”

The FBI is also responsible for the escalation of racial conflict in the 1960’s and 70’s, when paid FBI informant Gary Thomas Rowe Jr. instigated a shootout between the KKK and the Freedom Riders, murdered civil rights activist Viola Liuzzo, and blew up a church in Birmingham Alabama which left 4 African-American children dead.

At the same time as the Church Hearings, the FBI struck up a working relationship with notorious Boston crime boss James “Whitey” Bulger.

Hitting even closer to home, the resolution discusses “the FBI siege of a cabin in Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992, which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of Vicky and Sammy Weaver as well as a U.S. Marshal due to excessive use of force and revised rules of engagement promulgated by the FBI.”

One of the FBI whistleblowers, challenged by a representative to explain why he opposes law enforcement, he responded that the FBI is actually an intelligence organization with law enforcement capability. He was spot on. Combined with their actions as a political operatives, that is a triple threat, not to Trump supporters, but to democracy itself.

 

[brandon]

To my fellow liberals:

Don’t mistake a failure to convince @Snarky Sack of your position, or his weak arguments in general, as hostility.

My honest assessment of the situation is that we’ve been a lot less hospitable towards what amounts to a reasonable Trump voter than he’s been towards us.

His arguments aren’t going to start getting consistent or rational no matter how much that bothers you, but you have to remember that that’s because being a Trump supporter at this point is not a rational position to hold.

It’s necessary as a Trump voter to suspend rationality. All you can ask from a Trump voter is for a reasonable measure of civility when he makes his arguments, and he’s given that.

Feel free to point out logical fallacies and inconsistent positions, but don’t assume that that should be enough to change his position, as being a Trump voter is not and has not been based in logic and consistency. It shouldn’t offend you that he wasn’t convinced by your otherwise completely convincing argument, because anyone voting for Trump at this point has fended off any number of rational arguments.

Any argument that causes any level of cognitive dissonance is just completely ignored, which we’ve seen multiple times. It’s not intentionally disingenuous posting. It’s just what is required to continue holding on to his belief system.

So enjoy winning a few points against a sparring partner who honestly has been a lot better than the conservative posters we’ve had before.

(Did I manage to offend everyone?)

 

[Snarky Sack]

You are right. I just re-read that post. I remembered you coming in much more restrained than that. The responses you got were pretty much what should have been expected.

I did expect them, and I was fine with them. This is not my first message board, so no virgin ears were defiled by the cacophony of attacks. But they were not the respectful posts that you describe them as, including one of them you might recognize.

But I also know that people have tried to explain the differences between the Clinton and Trump situations and you not only refuse to believe it, you claim that the FBI and Comey- the same FBI and Comey that announced the reopening of the investigation into her a week before the 2016 election while keeping silent about the ongoing investigation into Trump- were trying to help her.

Comey acted to help Comey first, last and always. He closed the investigation anticipating that Clinton would win the election, and he re-opened it and announced the re-opening to avoid being accused of hiding the fact that he had re-opened it from Congress.

He really had no choice but re-open the investigation once they found that Hillary's classified emails had been spread even to the laptop of Anthony "Richard Pics" Wiener. You're right that it may well have been a deciding factor in Trump winning. But he had set himself for that. Not doing that would have ended his career when it came out, even if Clinton was president by then.

Comey's inappropriate act was to close the investigation before he tracked down all of her inappropriately sent documents. He did it, not to help Clinton win, but because he was sure that she would win, as he said in his book.

Maybe he thought he would never be able to find them all, so just wrap it up and wait for President Clinton 2.0. But he was in it for himself alone.

Everything you post is a ridiculous mishmash of contradictory positions, a complete lack of understanding on nearly every topic, and a firm belief that your opinions carry the same weight as contradictory facts and evidence all wrapped up in a condescending tone. People have tried to have honest conversations with you. I've tried. The only person involved that hasn't tried is you.

Your frustration is that you think you have these killer arguments that I'll never be able to refute, but then I refute them. So you start in on talking about how I post. Talk about the way I post all you like, call me as many names as you like. But if you compare me to non-existent respectful posters on here, I'm going to call you on it.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I did expect them, and I was fine with them. This is not my first message board, so no virgin ears were defiled by the cacophony of attacks. But they were not the respectful posts that you describe them as, including one of them you might recognize.

I surely do, and I stand by them. The parts I responded to showed your distinct lack of understanding how criminal investigations work as well as your rank hypocrisy.

Comey acted to help Comey first, last and always. He closed the investigation anticipating that Clinton would win the election, and he re-opened it and announced the re-opening to avoid being accused of hiding the fact that he had re-opened it from Congress.

He really had no choice but re-open the investigation once they found that Hillary's classified emails had been spread even to the laptop of Anthony "Richard Pics" Wiener. You're right that it may well have been a deciding factor in Trump winning. But he had set himself for that. Not doing that would have ended his career when it came out, even if Clinton was president by then.

Comey's inappropriate act was to close the investigation before he tracked down all of her inappropriately sent documents. He did it, not to help Clinton win, but because he was sure that she would win, as he said in his book.

Wait a sec. You spend so many posts decrying the things said by Comey, now you use his words to support your ridiculous claim?

Maybe he thought he would never be able to find them all, so just wrap it up and wait for President Clinton 2.0. But he was in it for himself alone.

Your frustration is that you think you have these killer arguments that I'll never be able to refute, but then I refute them. So you start in on talking about how I post. Talk about the way I post all you like, call me as many names as you like. But if you compare me to non-existent respectful posters on here, I'm going to call you on it.

Bless your heart...

 

[Lapaz]

I did expect them, and I was fine with them. This is not my first message board, so no virgin ears were defiled by the cacophony of attacks. But they were not the respectful posts that you describe them as, including one of them you might recognize.

Comey acted to help Comey first, last and always. He closed the investigation anticipating that Clinton would win the election, and he re-opened it and announced the re-opening to avoid being accused of hiding the fact that he had re-opened it from Congress.

He really had no choice but re-open the investigation once they found that Hillary's classified emails had been spread even to the laptop of Anthony "Richard Pics" Wiener. Comey's mistake, which he did not to help Clinton win, but because he was sure that she would win, was to close the investigation before he tracked down all of her inappropriately sent documents. Maybe he thought he would never be able to find them all, so just wrap it up and wait for President Clinton 2.0.

Your frustration is that you think you have these killer arguments that I'll never be able to refute, but then I refute them. So you start in on talking about how I post.

You speak of thousands of classified documents that Hillary supposedly had. All I know about are 3 emails that had a “c” marking somewhere within the emails. None were marked classified. Later I believe some were deemed to be worthy of being classified, but I believe those were after further consideration. They weren’t slam dunks. None were TS. Clinton did delete what she said were personal emails. Comparing her misdeed to Trump’s is like comparing someone who was speeding to someone driving recklessly multiple times the speed that Clinton was driving, getting caught, leading cops on a high speed chase, and then claiming he was being chased unlawfully.