- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Deep State Document Hunt Against Donald Trump in Context
Posted on 6/19/23 at 12:31 pm to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 6/19/23 at 12:31 pm to Vacherie Saint
Engaging the simp gutter slut will get you nothing!
0
Posted on 6/19/23 at 1:19 pm to Rawdawgs
quote:3
You should have no problem providing one clear example of what you are talking about.
LINK
quote:
The indictment accuses President Trump of withholding documents containing “classified markings,” a very specifically deployed obtuse wording intended to create the implication of something nefarious where nothing nefarious exists. It is entirely possible for a person, any person, especially a person who follows the news, to possess documents containing “classified markings.”
They then use this picture as a snapshot from the indictment:
On it's face, that seems legitimate and true. The problem is that they didn't explain the context of that picture. That picture isn't from a charge in the indictment directly relating to possessing documents marked classified. That comes from Count 37, which is the charge of False Statements and Representations.
So they have constructed this argument regarding the scary "marked classified" while obsfucating the fact they're relying on wording from a charge that's not about possessing classified documents. It's a charge related to Trump's representations about which documents he delivered pursuant to a subpoena.
quote:
There is a big difference between a classified document and a document containing classified markings. As an example, anyone who has looked at the Carter Page FISA application, made public in July 2018, has reviewed a document containing “classified markings.” When a document is declassified, they do not remove the markings.
Doubling down on the obfuscation.
The words, independent of anything else, are true. However, with context, you realize just how incredibly stupid and illogical this argument is.
quote:
Because the verbiage is so intentionally obtuse (ie. Lawfare), a fulsome production in compliance with this DOJ demand would include any newspaper or magazine articles that had a picture of the Carter Page FISA application, or any printed online article that might contain the same or similar elements.
And then emotional histrionics to rally Patriots own emotional response. Again, based on bullshite.
quote:
It is obvious from the demand, the DOJ/FBI were casting a wide net on the compliance side, knowing that amid hundreds-of-thousands of presidential documents and records, there would be obscure documents with classified markings that had nothing to do with national security. Thus, the “classified markings” establishes a Lawfare compliance tactic.
Tripling down, but this time re-using the boogeyman "Lawfare".
Posted on 6/20/23 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
Her(not they) description of the role of the Lawfare slime is accurate and well documented. They are neck deep in every corrupt Democrat operation in the past decade, from the Mueller Hoax to the Blassey Ford debacle to Wisemann's recent screed on Trump's indictiment. She outlines their corrupt motives and tactics while MSM and everyone else virtually ignores them. Their unholy alliance with the criminals inside the DOJ is indeed scary boogeyman shite. She brings the receipts and posts her supporting work. No one else does that.
Her assessment of the legal minutiae of the indictment is understandable, she is not a lawyer. She does't have a "Team" that is carefully crafting deceptive reporting designed to obfuscate the issue. Thinking that she is sounds like a conspiracy theory. She included a link to the indictment(kudos for you for clicking on it and providing your commentary), she wasn't hiding anything. Her legal ramblings may not be Lawfare approved, but you may be missing the forest for the trees here. the indictment is a carefully written word salad that is just another shoddy attempt to keep Trump off balance and unable to campaign. Legal mumbo jumbo bullshite and process crimes. That is all the context you need.
Her assessment of the legal minutiae of the indictment is understandable, she is not a lawyer. She does't have a "Team" that is carefully crafting deceptive reporting designed to obfuscate the issue. Thinking that she is sounds like a conspiracy theory. She included a link to the indictment(kudos for you for clicking on it and providing your commentary), she wasn't hiding anything. Her legal ramblings may not be Lawfare approved, but you may be missing the forest for the trees here. the indictment is a carefully written word salad that is just another shoddy attempt to keep Trump off balance and unable to campaign. Legal mumbo jumbo bullshite and process crimes. That is all the context you need.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News