Why Would Releasing the 1023 Detailing the Biden Bribery Scheme Endanger the Source? (2 Viewers)

[Snarky Sack]

Even if the name of source is redacted?



This is from the FBI itself, not wild speculation. Providing evidence against the Biden family means risking death. Anyone care to connect the dots, there?

By saying that, do you think the FBI makes it less likely or more likely that people with knowledge of crimes by senior officials (of any political stripe) will come forward?

 

[Snarky Sack]

You should probably quit accusing people of violating the TOS. Take it up with a moderator by reporting it if you suspect something.

I accuse no one of nothing. Sock puppets are allowed in the terms of service. But thank you very much for all the energy you spend accusing me of violating the TOS.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This doesn’t make any sense. So the DOJ shouldn’t charge him under the act because of the name of the act?

Not at all what I said. Not even close.

They charged him under the Espionage Act because they have credible evidence that he violated the Espionage Act. That’s it. They didn’t name the law.

My point, which I am happy to take the time to repeat to you, was that if he pleaded guilty, of course it would be reported that he "admitted guilt under the espionage act." So the DOJ, in what will be lengthy and fruitless negotiations, will offer to let him plead to something else. It's a very common prosecution tactic and I don't blame them for that. I fault their very obvious motives.

 

[MT15]

Not at all what I said. Not even close.

My point, which I am happy to take the time to repeat to you, was that if he pleaded guilty, of course it would be reported that he "admitted guilt under the espionage act." So the DOJ, in what will be lengthy and fruitless negotiations, will offer to let him plead to something else. It's a very common prosecution tactic and I don't blame them for that. I fault their very obvious motives.

Their motives are clear cut to me, and involve the fact that they always prosecute this exact crime. It’s your feeling that they have ulterior motives. Not a fact at all.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You paint yourself into a corner and this is how you try to come out of it?

Does the rule of law mean anything to you? So being that (according to you) Trump is a "yugely popular candidate", (I lean toward "most imbecilic"), then he should then be above the law? I mean, isn't your party all about the rule of law, or does it only apply when it fits the parties agenda? You know, like if it was Biden being charged instead? That would be cool, right? Because of the Biden Crime family, and all.

Show me in my post where I said that Trump is "above the law." If not, please withdraw your implied accusation post haste.

I would be appalled if Biden was charged with anything. I approve of the DOJ's official policy of never charging a sitting president. Presidents can be impeached and removed if they are actual criminals. Unfortunately, they are sometimes impeached for partisan reasons, but not removed due to no serious criminal conduct that warrants removal.

I do not approve of their withholding evidence from Congress who needs it to fairly consider impeachment.

I’m glad you admitted your hypocrisy. You think Trump is above the law because he is clever enough to know that people like you will let him get away with anything by running for president. You effectively think he should be untouchable, except for some horrific act that you deem crosses the line. Trifling with National security is silly, even though real people can be killed. Others like me want him to be treated as he should be. The law shouldn’t be a popularity contest. If we allow a person to break laws by running for president and he has fooled enough people into supporting him, then there will be no barriers for such a person to destroy the country.

The fact is that the document retention and obstruction case against Trump is not silly. Such actions are very dangerous, and we must not allow anyone to get away with such gross actions with our top secrets. It is vital to our national security that we establish that that is not acceptable no matter who you are.

The silliness is in waiting until he is a frontrunner and then charging him. Do they really not know how transparent that is, or do they just not care, since some people will cheer anything bad for the Evil Orange Man, no matter what its effect on Democracy? It must be the latter, because any dumb enough to believe that what they're doing is not obvious would not be able to fill out a job application for the FBI or the DOJ.

A sitting president, or a presidential election front runner, is unique in our democracy. Not above the law. In fact such a person has an additional means of being held accountable.

My preference, is that instead of having the FBI/DOJ secretly present what may or may not be real evidence (remember the FISA warrants) to a grand jury, that they present the evidence to the American people. In other words, instead of a jury of twelve, let him be "tried" at the polls, where he can have 150,000,000 plus people pass judgement, AND it doesn't have to be unanimous to go against him.

A finding of guilty by a unanimous jury in Florida while Trump is the presidential front runner, more popular in that state as a presidential candidate than their own Republican governor, is a fantasy. If he runs and is deafeated, then there will be a chance for a fair, and less political, criminal trial.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You paint yourself into a corner and this is how you try to come out of it?

Does the rule of law mean anything to you? So being that (according to you) Trump is a "yugely popular candidate", (I lean toward "most imbecilic"), then he should then be above the law? I mean, isn't your party all about the rule of law, or does it only apply when it fits the parties agenda? You know, like if it was Biden being charged instead? That would be cool, right? Because of the Biden Crime family, and all.

BTW, Good morning Frazier! This is the first time I've seen you on here, I should have greeted you in my previous response to you.

I thought from the style of your writing that you were another poster when I responded before. Even though you have been on the board far longer than I (since 2020), I feel as though I should welcome you, or perhaps welcome you back since you have only made twenty posts in those years. Strong silent type, eh? Admirable!

 

[Lapaz]

Show me in my post where I said that Trump is "above the law." If not, please withdraw your implied accusation post haste.

I would be appalled if Biden was charged with anything. I approve of the DOJ's official policy of never charging a sitting president. Presidents can be impeached and removed if they are actual criminals. Unfortunately, they are sometimes impeached for partisan reasons, but not removed due to no serious criminal conduct that warrants removal.

I do not approve of their withholding evidence from Congress who needs it to fairly consider impeachment.


The silliness is in waiting until he is a frontrunner and then charging him. Do they really not know how transparent that is, or do they just not care, since some people will cheer anything bad for the Evil Orange Man, no matter what its effect on Democracy? It must be the latter, because any dumb enough to believe that what they're doing is not obvious would not be able to fill out a job application for the FBI or the DOJ.

A sitting president, or a presidential election front runner, is unique in our democracy. Not above the law. In fact such a person has an additional means of being held accountable.

My preference, is that instead of having the FBI/DOJ secretly present what may or may not be real evidence (remember the FISA warrants) to a grand jury, that they present the evidence to the American people. In other words, instead of a jury of twelve, let him be "tried" at the polls, where he can have 150,000,000 plus people pass judgement, AND it doesn't have to be unanimous to go against him.

A finding of guilty by a unanimous jury in Florida while Trump is the presidential front runner, more popular in that state as a presidential candidate than their own Republican governor, is a fantasy. If he runs and is deafeated, then there will be a chance for a fair, and less political, criminal trial.

Your man stalled to use his presidential run as a shield. It isn’t a shield in the law. It is politically, and your whole argument isn’t about advocating for Justice. It is about politics. Essentially you advocate for elimination of our Justice System for presidential leaders. If he weren’t leading, I assume you would say to convict away. What if he doesn’t win the primary? Would it then be okay to proceed with the trial? By your standard, it is a popularity contest. Trump can do anything because he is the leading candidate. It means our laws don’t apply to presidential candidates, and that can be used to shield them from anything. Your positions are ludicrous.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Your man stalled to use his presidential run as a shield. It isn’t a shield in the law. It is politically, and your whole argument isn’t about advocating for Justice. It is about politics.

Fair.

But also to show how futile this effort by Democrats in the DOJ is.

Essentially you advocate for elimination of our Justice System for presidential leaders.

Nope.

If he weren’t leading, I assume you would say to convict away.

Not sure what I would say depending on where Trump stood in the election. Well, I know I would say "let the trial begin," not "convict away." You know this is all taking place in America, right?

I would say that any former president has to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. But where to draw the line as to how serious another candidate would have to be in order to have his trial deferred so as to avoid interfering with Democracy is a tougher question.

If a guy is indicted and immediately announces that he's running for president and he's never been in politics before, that would be a "yeah right" moment almost everyone would agree on. But if a Senator is indicted and says, "I've been getting a campaign organization going, I was planning to announce next Tuesday!" opinion on his seriousness would probably be divided on party lines.

What if he doesn’t win the primary? Would it then be okay to proceed with the trial?

Yes, of course. Other than it being more waste of taxpayers money for a conviction that will never happen. Ironic that you would ask that, because I think that if Trump loses the primary, the DOJ will either drop the case or offer a plea bargain for some silly misdemeanor that even Trump would roll his eyes and sign off on.

By your standard, it is a popularity contest. Trump can do anything because he is the leading candidate. It means our laws don’t apply to presidential candidates, and that can be used to shield them from anything. Your positions are ludicrous.

If those were my positions, they would indeed be ludicrous.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I analyzed one person's actions and speculated that she had certain traits that influenced her motivation.

He never had to admit his motivation...

But that doesn't mean that the motivation of the entire congress is then to be discounted.

Even if it was, it is the job of the voters to judge members of Congress motivation, not the FBI.

I apologize for mischaracterizing your action. Clearly, you and only you, know its motivation.

Acribing the worst possible motives and behavior to anyone who does not fully agree with every aspect of the entire trans agenda turns a board like this into an insult contest instead of an adult discussion of issues.

...along with the profit motive of the transgenderization of kids industry, means that it happens in growing numbers.

The debate bogs down when we ascribe motives to others, because we would often be wrong, and we could never prove it, and the ascribed motives are so alarming.

I fault their very obvious motives.

Putting America first is about motivation, and putting America first is no Biden's motivation.

Saying verbatim the same thing in a second post.

I fault their very obvious motives.

I see a lot of inconsistencies on the issue of whether or not we should ascribe motivations to people and whether or not we can actually know the motivations of other people.

We all have a tendency to think we know what people's motivations are, but we don't. Speculating is guessing. So, I think if one's beliefs are based on the ascribing of bad motivations to the people one doesn't agree with, then one's beliefs are fundamentally flawed and most likely not correct.

If the same person argues against ascribing motivations when it supports their beliefs, but also makes arguments built upon ascribing motivations to support their beliefs, then their belief system is flawed.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

If he did it for those reasons. I have no reason to think he did.

Here is another source for why he did it:

Biden canceled the pipeline’s border crossing permit in January over longstanding concerns that burning oil sands crude could make climate change worse and harder to reverse.

Keystone XL pipeline nixed after Biden stands firm on permit

The sponsor of the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline says it's pulling the plug on the contentious project after Canadian officials failed to persuade the Biden administration to reverse its cancellation of the company's permit.

apnews.com

Keystone Pipeline would have only permenently employed like 35 people, mostly Canadian. People have this image of it employing thousands of people permenently, which is laughable assumtion.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Keystone Pipeline would have only permenently employed like 35 people, mostly Canadian. People have this image of it employing thousands of people permenently, which is laughable assumtion.

How many Americans does the Nord Stream Pipeline employ?

 

[SFIDC3]

I’m glad you admitted your hypocrisy. You think Trump is above the law because he is clever enough to know that people like you will let him get away with anything by running for president. You effectively think he should be untouchable, except for some horrific act that you deem crosses the line. Trifling with National security is silly, even though real people can be killed. Others like me want him to be treated as he should be. The law shouldn’t be a popularity contest. If we allow a person to break laws by running for president and he has fooled enough people into supporting him, then there will be no barriers for such a person to destroy the country.

The fact is that the document retention and obstruction case against Trump is not silly. Such actions are very dangerous, and we must not allow anyone to get away with such gross actions with our top secrets. It is vital to our national security that we establish that that is not acceptable no matter who you are.

While i appreciate and agree with all you say up above, that's a lot of words to tell a cult member that he is actually in a cult!!!!!