CdnFox

He comes after me without me having to post anything to him If anyone would put anyone on ignore it would be me putting him on ignore. But what the hell - nobody thought you were terribly bright before so you might as well lean into it Having said that i don't think leaving is the answer either. You just have to stop getting angry at the world and taking it out on people here - be it me or anyone else.

No, that is the job of politicians as far as our pillars of state go. It is NOT the job of the judiciary. At all. There is no 'court of personal feelings". It is a court of law. And it IS absolutely part of the mandate of a court that those who have been wronged by a criminal see that the criminal receives punishment. That's important. If people feel that the criminal walked away after harming them without suffering a negative effect proportional to the suffering inflicted then they don't feel justice has been done and the system breaks down.

It depends on whether or not you intend to get cremated when the time comes.

True but also evidence of the third charge as well. the first proves he knew that he had the boxes still and that they were classified, not just personal momentos. So it weakens his 'moved by accident' story. And the second shows he was actively working out how to best hide the boxes - remember you can't have an obstruction charge without there being some sort of underlying crime. If he accidentally moved teh boxes then there's no obstruction. if ALL they are left with is the final charge of not returning the boxes when ordered then that's much tougher to pull off Well that's not accurate. If it was then biden would be in real trouble. What they're going to stick him with is INTENTIONALLY not turning the docs over. And if you just forgot they were there then that's not 'intentional' no matter what kind of car you store them with

That's not really a problem. If anything given the sensitivity of the case there's an excellent chance that the judge will be very open to his side of things if there are any Discrepancies or irregularities whatsoever with the warrants or how they came to apply for them. And God knows we've seen the FBI screw up before. Again however they are going to be held to an extremely high standard. And let's be clear, some of this critical evidence may not ever make it to the courtroom. There's a very real chance the warrant gets squashed and they never hear about the boxes. Then there is the conspiracy stuff but if that turns out to be lawyers privilege that goes away too before it ever sees a court. Which just leaves the Improper distribution of classified materials, which is a very serious charge but it will be argued that many many people have leaked information to the Press before and that it wasn't a serious breach. It will be interesting to see. Basically the prosecutors have three rounds in their gun. We will have to see if Trump can dodge them all or not

BTW - side note: You realize that There is a good chance that this will not be over before the next election. Which means it is possible that Trump may become president Before he is sent to jail. We could literally see the first case in history of someone becoming president and then pardoning themselves as they take office Or better yet being found guilty, elected, and pardoning himself from jail LOL " Oh did I do something wrong? Well pardon me! " roflmao!

They supposedly have a tape of him talking to the writer, his former lawyer is giving evidence against him and has provided a tape as well, and they have texts of him ordering people to move the boxes. It's not exactly over - but the case against him is strong if they have the evidence they claim they do and it's allowed into court. There's no two ways about it here, he's in trouble. Without those tapes of him basically admitting his guilt then this gets a lot easier but they are pretty devastating if they're allowed to be admitted.

there's a lot of places in that story where if paperwork wasn't done right or assumptions were made it could be grounds for challenging the warrant - and then a ot of the case goes out the window. This is going to be pretty intense i suspect long before it sees the inside of a court

the judge said there was enough evidence that the case should proceed and can't be dismissed - but that's not the same as saying the evidence must be admitted or finds him guilty. As noted the charges clearly indicate that the lawyers acted in good faith all the way along trying to return the docs and wanting to verify the contents of the boxes themselves. And that there were delays and confusion. And as i understand it trump wasn't present when they did the verification. (could be wrong but that was my read). so it would still be super easy to say in all the confusion the boxes got separated, i thought they were all togetther, the lawyers looked through the ones there and thought they had them all, i thought they'd seen tehm all but turns out some where missing. And i haven't looked in my desk since i lost the election. He doesn't have to prove taht's what happened, only that it could have. But - you get conspiracy when you bring in the lawyers testimony - IF that's allowed. He's in trouble but there are paths out

They're not crooked. They're circular. Eventually they always seem to find a way to bite themselves in the ass

Uhhh - that link you posted to? Yeah ... that says you're wrong ROFLMAO!!!! Lets take a look That means they were unable to reject the information. Not that they arbitrarily rejected it. It's a reconcilliation issue - not a rejection issue. It's the emotional pain felt when you CAN'T resolve the disparity If you reject facts because they disagree with your world view - that's not dissonance That's denial or tribalism depending on the circumstances. As i said - it's not an arbitrary choice It's more like when you can't choose So - first you use the word wrong - THEN you double down and insist you're using it correctly when you're still wrong, THEN you post PROOF you were wrong LOLOL Ahhh robogoof - you're always good for a laugh Honestly you make me chuckle

Is it me or is this guy more like trump every day?

@Nationalist, what you fail to realize is that Beaver is an enviromental leftie and therefore he looks for ways to do LESS laundry to save the planet. Like - when his underwear needs changing instead of just throwing it in the laundry he just flips it inside out and he's good for ANOTHER week. What are YOU doing to save the planet? Huh? Huh ??

LOL - ohhh i think that your level of stupidity amuses all kinds of people You are a universal joke

That's really not what "cognitive dissonance" means. It's sort of close but no. What you're talking about is tribalism. If it's 'arbitrary' then it's not cognitive dissonance. But it's always cute to watch you put your 'phrase of the day" calendar to work

Even there he could have danced around the boxes being moved thing. Even by the evidence they claim they have in the indictment there were a lot of personal and other things being moved around at the same time - and he could easily claim that he gave instruction and his people messed up, or that he though he ordered them to move personal boxes but there was confusion etc and he'd probably get away with it - BUT there's the lawyers statement. If he can't figure out how to get that dismissed or found to be privileged conversation then he's going to have a problem

Your apology is utterly meaningless if you don't change your behavior.

It's still going to derail the conversation. And a lot of it is pretty funny stuff... i still haven't figured out what the hell this copy and paste thing he keeps going on about each time means. Like i said -tried ignoring but he still just posts and posts, so the thread is getting derailed either way, might as well amuse myself and let him get it out of his system. So i shouldn't care what he thinks or says - but somehow i should desperately care that you might ignore me. I don't know why you're choosing to come after me about this - but you do what you've got to do. If you feel like sticking your head in the sand and 'ignoring' instead of just skipping over those posts when he's like that then you do you. But if you want to try to some how make ME responsible for YOUR dislikes after someone else chooses to come after me relentlessly then you're not being very reasonable. Like i said, take it up with him. We're about 3 weeks away from the next one so you've got the time. And if you can't convince him i promise next time i'll put a little effort into making my insults more entertaining

Sure, i'm aware. You could argue you didn't remember you had 'those ones' or the like - or as in hillary's case " i didn't know THOSE ones were classified" or that you meant THOSE ones... there's some precedent for allowing ignorance to be an excuse. Hey - i THOUGHT i turned over all the relevant documents and i didnt' think i had any more. It shouldn't really be a defense because it can be argued if you took it you knew you had it and not keeping track of what classified docs you took is bad, but they let it slide. But - apparently they have him on tape saying he knows he has them and knows they're still classified. So unlike the others, that completely eliminates the " i didn't do it intentionally' defense if they indeed have that and it's admissible .

it's not really debatable. For it to be precedent a court would have had to rule on it. That has never happened. That's a tough row to hoe. They'e arguing what trump did is different. And much of the charges are - nobody is suggesting obama knowingly and willingly distributed classified documents to unauthorized people, they've got trump on tape doing that apparently. Obama and biden use the "oh i forgot those" excuse for not returning documents and that was fine - hillary used the 'didn't know they were classified' excuse and that SHOULDN'T have been fine but was accepted. Trump is on tape saying he KNOWS he has them after he should have returned them AND saying he KNOWS he DID NOT declassify them and they're still classified. So those defenses are out the window for him. Well a few laws - he failed to return them when asked even tho he knew he still had them He is also guilty of obstruction if what they're saying turns out to be true. He is also guilty of knowingly distributing classified documents to unauthorized people if what they say turns out to be true. None of the others were suspected of any of those things, with the possible exception of hillary. And hillery was let off the hook because she was going to run for president and you can't lock up your political rivals.

The fact a president hasn't been charged is not a 'legal precedent'. YOU haven't been charged either - but that doesnt' mean you couldn't be The decision not to charge past leaders is political, not legal. The law hates it. But -the idea of a new president locking up his political opponents theoretically puts the whole system into question and erodes faith - it weakens democracy by shaking people's confidence in it So - historically it's been avoided. But - that has NOTHING to do with the law. That will likely play out well for Trump in the court of public opinion, but not in the actual court who won't even consider it.

LOL - i remember when I was young and stupid like you You'll get wiser and older like i did over time. Well ... you'll get older anyway. the idea was to prevent the murder. Don't you think that's a better idea than letting people get murdered? And the problem with 911 is that you can only call it when someone is in the process of being murdered. You can't really call it if you think someone is getting closer to being murdered. And the problem with just calling a regular line is that what was happening is that a normal investigation tended to make it apparent who squealed and then that person would become a target within their family or their community and their lives would be at risk So they wanted to set up a line that would be very specifically anonymous and which would allow police to set up investigations that were far more discreet. That way people could safely report dangerous situations BEFORE they led to murders. this is no different than 'whistleblower' legislation. Why would you think this is a bad thing? Are you PRO murdering young women for dating men or something?

well - they're making their LATEST move - it's not like hard left authortarianism hasn't reared it's head in world domination before ( China, Russia, looking at you.. ) But they are certainly making a move in north america. They want to tear down our existing system and replace it with their version of a utopia That's why all traditional values are bad, all history of the country is bad, everything is built on slavery and racism, the police are bad and the gov't is bad, Christianity is bad, etc etc , Once people accept everything we have or care about is bad they'll be willing to replace it with all that leftie goodness and authoritarianism.

The left or the muslims?

Which socioeconomic inequalities went up during the liberals? And which were going down under the conservatives such that the numbers were diving then?