Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Trump Riot Aftermath (Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Proud Boys join the club)


Cooked Crack

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Be willing to bet that the Trump White House had standing orders not to keep records about that.  (And lots of other things.)  

 

And Trump has xerox machines.  And toilets. 

 

-----

 

And not the first, either.  

 

Remember after 9/11?  People were hinting that W knew about it.  And they were denying it.  Before 9/11 it was completely unthinkable that any terrorist organization would ever attack on US soil.  

 

And it leaked out that in mid August, the title of the Presidential Daily Briefing was "Ossama determined to attack within the US".  

 

White House pulled all their people back in.  Spent a day or two huddled in the White House.  Then they came out.  

 

And what do you know?  According to the White House records, President W, in the entire month of August

 

* Never once received a Presidential Daily Briefing.  

* Never spoke with the head of the CIA

* Never spoke with the head of the FBI.  

* Never spoke with his National Security Advisor.  

Remember Trump got mad people were writing down thing? The guy tore up stuff and threw them in toilet.  He thinks everything he took was his.  He doesn't handle things with care or security.  It wouldn't surprise me he took some documents while traveling.  He travels to Bedminister a lot. Would surprise me if there's stuff there, Trump Plaza, or any other propertyhe owns.

  • Thanks 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Saw some blurb in the news that they think Trump still has more documents after the raid.

 

Of course.  We say he had dirt on Macron, but we haven't seen the files with the dirt on Lindsey Graham and others.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Forehead said:

 

I'm at the believe it when I see it stage with this guy.  But I'm hopeful, to send a message to the rest of them if nothing else.


I mean, maybe he cuts some kinda deal to never be heard from again, but that would be way out of his character.

 

Hes getting indicted for sure though.  They didn’t go to all this trouble for nothing.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what we'll start to see more of is Trump trying desperately to throw everyone around him under the bus. He'll probably start claiming he had nothing to do with it and didn't know anything about it and the people around him did it. Lucky that we have those Truth posts where he basically admits that he not only personally ordered the documents to be taken but that he knew quite well how sensitive they were.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Forehead said:

 

I'm at the believe it when I see it stage with this guy.  But I'm hopeful, to send a message to the rest of them if nothing else.


"The rest of them" is the entire Republican Party. 
 

Jan 6 was a team effort that required hundreds, maybe thousands, of people. And months. And they had no trouble assuming the team would respond. And they did, and continue to do so. 
 

Same with voter suppression. The entire Party, unanimously, every state. 
 

All we're going to see is hundreds of people who have willingly assisted in the looting, for years, pretending that Trump personally did everything. 

  • Like 2
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 86 Snyder said:


I mean, maybe he cuts some kinda deal to never be heard from again, but that would be way out of his character

When posed this idea a few weeks ago, or whenever, @PleaseBlitzwas adamant that’s not how the DOJ works, and that doing this would make a non-political issue (for the DOJ) political etc

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking more on this?  
 

What I'm rooting for, now?  Is if Trump burns everything down, when he goes. 
 

Probably not very likely. 
 

For example. Do you really think Mitch McConnell was dumb enough to give Trump something that was a threat to Mitch?  You think Ted Cruz was?  Or Tucker?  
 

Maybe Trump has something on them, in the form of some classified intel. But that's the only way I see that happening. 
 

No, what's more likely is that his rage will manifest as tweets from a toilet, where Trump calls them some junior high names. Maybe insults their wives. 
 

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

When posed this idea a few weeks ago, or whenever, @PleaseBlitzwas adamant that’s not how the DOJ works, and that doing this would make a non-political issue (for the DOJ) political etc


Oh, I figured the big hole in the "Trump promises to STFU, in exchange for no jail" scenario, is that it would require the DOJ to accept a future promise, from Trump. 

Edited by Larry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Larry said:

Oh, I figured the big hole in the "Trump promises to STFU, in exchange for no jail" scenario, is that it would require the DOJ to accept a future promise, from Trump. 

 

You say that like there is a good reason for the DOJ, of all groups, not to trust Donald Trump, of ALL people. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Larry said:

Thinking more on this?  
 

What I'm rooting for, now?  Is if Trump burns everything down, when he goes. 
 

Probably not very likely. 
 

For example. Do you really think Mitch McConnell was dumb enough to give Trump something that was a threat to Mitch?  You think Ted Cruz was?  Or Tucker?  
 

Maybe Trump has something on them, in the form of some classified intel. But that's the only way I see that happening. 
 

No, what's more likely is that his rage will manifest as tweets from a toilet, where Trump calls them some junior high names. Maybe insults their wives. 
 


Oh, I figured the big hole in the "Trump promises to STFU, in exchange for no jail" scenario, is that it would require the DOJ to accept a future promise, from Trump. 

 

Trump probably doesn't have anything on Moscow Mitch and wife, Moscow Mitch is too interested in padding the federal judiciary, misson accomplished.

 

He most likely has stuff on Cruz because Cruz doesn't strike me as having too many smarts. 

 

Carlson maybe but he's too ambitious for himself.

 

Anyone else I'm sure he does, like Lindsey Graham although Graham's "secret" isn't much of on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

He most likely has stuff on Cruz because Cruz doesn't strike me as having too many smarts. 

 

 

 

I detest Ted Cruz for any number of reasons, but stupid isn't one.  You don't go Princeton -> Harvard Law being stupid.  He wasn't a legacy admission or anything.  He may be an asshole and every other thing out of his mouth may be a disingenuous argument, but stupid he is not.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hail2skins said:

Allahpundit on the "Trump is done" stuff:

 

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022/08/30/ann-coulter-on-trump-hes-done-its-over-n493399

 

I know I was wrong in 2020, and it's still way early, but my gut has zero confidence that we won't see him back as POTUS in 2025.

 

I don't think they define "done" the same way others do.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Forehead said:

 

I detest Ted Cruz for any number of reasons, but stupid isn't one.  You don't go Princeton -> Harvard Law being stupid.  He wasn't a legacy admission or anything.  He may be an asshole and every other thing out of his mouth may be a disingenuous argument, but stupid he is not.

 

There's a difference between "uneducated" and "stupid"...Ted Cruz is educated. I'll give him that much.

Edited by Califan007 The Constipated
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Pretty good outline of the facts of the case devoid of speculation and BS:

 

Without getting too specific, I'll just say I've dealt with Brad Moss a few times in the course of my career.  Being on the Federal side, he can be a PITA, but I respect his ethics and generally what he is doing.  I'd say he's spot on here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

VERY good thread, well worth the short read on Twitter…

 

 

The rest:

 

”1) The facts. NARA negotiated in 2021 for the missing records. They finally got 15 boxes. After going through them and finding all kinds of classified records (not organized at all), they raised the alarm. They wanted to make a referral to the FBI but had to first consult with Trump's team, per the PRA procedure. Trump's team delayed for weeks and weeks, and never substantively responded. Finally, NARA told Trump's team they were making the referral and rejected the "protective" assertion of Executive Privilege.

 

2) At no time did Trump's legal team file an action *at that point* to prevent the referral to FBI.

 

3) The FBI reviewed the records and the criminal inquiry was opened. A grand jury subpoena was issued to Trump's team. Again, they delayed and delayed in complying. Finally, in early June they agreed to a meeting at MAL to comply. They turned over more classified records, and swore out a statement that they had done a diligent search, they had not found any more classified records, and any records that remained were in the storage room. They refused to let the FBI agents look at the boxes in the storage room.

 

4) The FBI gathered new evidence that there were in fact more classified records at MAL, including in locations outside of the storage room. They got the search warrant and found approximately 100 additional classified records, some located in Trump's own office. 
 

5) That is straight up obstruction and concealment of classified records, and willfully retaining them in an unauthorized location.

 

6) Now come the legal arguments. First, DOJ says Trump lacks standing. The records are not his: they are the property of the US. Even if he wanted to claim them as personal records, he never did so. He did not do so in 2021, he did not do so when subpoenaed, he never did it. He has no possessory interest in the records. 

 

7) Second, they argue Trump is not entitled to any injunctive relief. Again, these are not his records, he waited way too long to even try to stop the FBI from getting the records, he's not entitled to relief given Executive Privilege would not apply, and even if it did the criminal investigative need outweighs it.

 

8. Third, the Special Master is moot. The A/C privilege records were already separated and are set to be evaluated by the magistrate. The records Trump claims are covered by EP are not his anyway, and the Nixon precedents make clear he cannot invoke it to override the need to conduct a criminal investigation. 

 

9) To sum it up, Trump took PLAINLY MARKED classified records to MAL, he delayed, obstructed and resisted Government efforts to recover them, he (or his staff) concealed the records from investigators, and they got caught doing so.

 

/end

 

Why is every paragraph number follwed by a ) except for number eight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JUST IN: DOJ Reportedly Isn’t Likely to Reveal Any Trump Charges Until After Election

 

If former President Donald Trump ends up facing charges from the Department of Justice, they are unlikely to be revealed before the midterm elections, according to a new report.

 

Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the investigation into Trump allegedly holding onto classified documents, that an announcement of potential charges would likely happen after the election. It’s not entirely surprising as department policy bars prosecutors from filing charges that could affect an election or be seen as benefitting one particular party or candidate within 60 days.

 

From Bloomberg:

 

Quote

Under long-standing department policy, prosecutors are barred from taking investigative steps or filing charges for the purpose of affecting an election or helping a candidate or party, traditionally 60 days before an election. This year, that would be by Sept. 10, which makes it unlikely anything would be announced until after Nov. 8, said people who asked to remain anonymous speaking about potential Justice Department actions.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

I guess this answers my question as to when, if they have so much slam dunk evidence, are they planning to file charges,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...