Trump’s press secretary says he showed classified docs to people on Mar-a-Lago dining patio

[BeaverFever]

Edited July 13 by BeaverFever

[Nationalist]

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Ahhh...the king of TDS returns with a vengeance.

Hi Beave.

[robosmith]

 

Donald Trump spoke with Hugh Hewitt on his radio show: 

And confesses to the CRIMES with which he is charged stating he is above the law. LMAO

Quote

HEWITT: “Did you direct anyone to move the boxes, Mr. President? Did you tell anyone to move the boxes?”
TRUMP: “I don’t talk about anything. You know why? Because I’m allowed to do whatever I want. I come under the Presidential Records Act. I’m not telling you. You know, every time I talk to you, oh, I have a breaking story. You don’t have any story. I come under the Presidential Records Act. I’m allowed to do everything I did.” 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

 

Donald Trump spoke with Hugh Hewitt on his radio show: 

And confesses to the CRIMES with which he is charged stating he is above the law. LMAO

 

There's no confession of a crime there.  He literally doesn't say what he did - but says whatever he did it was legal. THat's the precise opposite of a confession.

I know you've been hearing those voices in your head for a while,but it seems like you're just hearing whatever you want with everything now   

[Rebound]

On 9/14/2023 at 4:39 PM, CdnFox said:

There's no confession of a crime there.  He literally doesn't say what he did - but says whatever he did it was legal. THat's the precise opposite of a confession.

I know you've been hearing those voices in your head for a while,but it seems like you're just hearing whatever you want with everything now   

“I’m allowed to do everything I did” is a damning confession when taken with the other facts, such as, “He retained documents after a court ordered him to return them and he ordered some of the documents moved to be hidden from his own lawyers, and now he says the reason he did that is because he thinks he’s allowed to do anything he wants.”

Not good.  

[robosmith]

On 9/14/2023 at 1:39 PM, CdnFox said:

There's no confession of a crime there.  He literally doesn't say what he did - but says whatever he did it was legal. THat's the precise opposite of a confession.

I know you've been hearing those voices in your head for a while,but it seems like you're just hearing whatever you want with everything now   

IN RESPONSE to questions about ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, Trump says he's above the law ("can do whatever I want"). He's not.

Not surprised that you don't understand how that is a confession to the actions QUERIED.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

“I’m allowed to do everything I did” is a damning confession when taken with the other facts, such as, “He retained documents after a court ordered him to return them and he ordered some of the documents moved to be hidden from his own lawyers, and now he says the reason he did that is because he thinks he’s allowed to do anything he wants.”

Not good.  

No.  No... saying "i did nothing illegal' is not a confession.

This is literally how you see the world:

- Did you commit a crime?

- No sir!

- Ahhh - so you confess!!!!

FFS dude  you're being an !diot.  A confession is an admission of guilt. It is not an admission of innocence.

We'll have to see what a judge says but no - no you can NOT point to that and call it a confession.  It's stupidity like that which robs you of all credibility.

[Caswell Thomas]

Well, we know his idea of Security was essentially similar to hiring A playground supervisor for a kindergarten , he refused the FBI's request to install security cameras and other presidential orotective surveillance devices, back he could have shown and sold them to anyone!  That's when China lost any respect for him and began preparing for war with us. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

IN RESPONSE to questions about ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, Trump says he's above the law ("can do whatever I want"). He's not.

Not surprised that you don't understand how that is a confession to the actions QUERIED.

Yeah - that's not what he said.  And even then it wouldn't be an admission of guilt, it would be a statement that he cannot BE guilty.

Sorry kiddo - yet another case of you just not understanding how english works.  Amusing tho - you always deliver a laugh  

[BeaverFever]

On 7/5/2023 at 5:34 AM, CdnFox said:

think it's pretty obvious at this point trump plays fast and loose with classified documents, like other gov't officials we could name    

You can’t possibly compare Trump’s deliberate theft of truckloads of documents as he left office which he then lied about and tried to conceal with other leaders’ inadvertent misplacement of a few documents while they were still in office which they promptly reported and returned when they discovered they still had them. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

You can’t possibly compare Trump’s deliberate theft of truckloads of documents as he left office which he then lied about and tried to conceal with other leaders’ inadvertent misplacement of a few documents while they were still in office which they promptly reported and returned when they discovered they still had them. 

First off - if you're going to take 2 months to think of a reply - do better than that

Second - i was thinking more of clinton.

Third - the documents weren't stolen. He had every right to remove them and take them 'to his office' when he did. Nobody anywhere has disputed that.  His 'crime' should he be found guilty would be willfully not returning them. So - not theft. 

Forth - i'm not sure he did lie - i believe he decieved others who then 'lied' on his behalf. I'm not sure he ever directly swore he returned everything. There's little doubt he acted to prevent the return but that's different.

So right off the bat you throw your credibility out the window by choosing to lie instead of honestly stating what he's being charged with and the truth of the allegations. 

This is why people think you're a shambling !diot who only parrots his echo chamber doctrine.  Learn to be honest - learn to think. What actually DID trump do that was 'illegal'?

If he can demonstrate that he actually willfully hid the documents then that's going to be a problem for him, but they're taking the approach that it was an error and he thought those boxes were his personal things. there's circumstantial evidence that suggest otherwise but - he might very well sell that, and that was exactly the same as biden's defense,  Gosh guys i thought i returned it all but i didn't.

 

 

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

First off - if you're going to take 2 months to think of a reply - do better than that

Second - i was thinking more of clinton.

Third - the documents weren't stolen. He had every right to remove them and take them 'to his office' when he did. Nobody anywhere has disputed that.  His 'crime' should he be found guilty would be willfully not returning them. So - not theft. 

Forth - i'm not sure he did lie - i believe he decieved others who then 'lied' on his behalf. I'm not sure he ever directly swore he returned everything. There's little doubt he acted to prevent the return but that's different.

So right off the bat you throw your credibility out the window by choosing to lie instead of honestly stating what he's being charged with and the truth of the allegations. 

This is why people think you're a shambling !diot who only parrots his echo chamber doctrine.  Learn to be honest - learn to think. What actually DID trump do that was 'illegal'?

If he can demonstrate that he actually willfully hid the documents then that's going to be a problem for him, but they're taking the approach that it was an error and he thought those boxes were his personal things. there's circumstantial evidence that suggest otherwise but - he might very well sell that, and that was exactly the same as biden's defense,  Gosh guys i thought i returned it all but i didn't.

 

 

Don’t split hairs like that because we aren’t stupid. His authority to possess government property, classified or not, ended on January 20, 2021.  After that, WILLFUL and KNOWING possession became a crime. When he subsequently refused to return them despite a court order, he added obstruction to his list of crimes.

Why does he do this stuff? His lawyers told him not to, but he did anyway. 

[Nationalist]

18 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Don’t split hairs like that because we aren’t stupid. His authority to possess government property, classified or not, ended on January 20, 2021.  After that, WILLFUL and KNOWING possession became a crime. When he subsequently refused to return them despite a court order, he added obstruction to his list of crimes.

Why does he do this stuff? His lawyers told him not to, but he did anyway. 

So did Clinton...Bush...Obama...and probably every president before them.

Then there's Joe...

[Rebound]

51 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

So did Clinton...Bush...Obama...and probably every president before them.

Then there's Joe...

Not f-ing true and you know it.  If lies are your defense, it’s a poor defense.  
 

The law says a violation occurs only if the documents are retained knowingly and intentionally. 

Edited September 16 by Rebound

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Not f-ing true and you know it.  If lies are your defense, it’s a poor defense.  
 

The law says a violation occurs only if the documents are retained knowingly and intentionally. 

It is true. In fact I think Obama kept his warehouse of documents and sent electronic copies to the archives.

Good luck with your never-ending witch hunt.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

It is true. In fact I think Obama kept his warehouse of documents and sent electronic copies to the archives.

Good luck with your never-ending witch hunt.

The National Archives issued a statement that your rumor about Obama  is false. A lie, if you will.  
 

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001

Edited September 16 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Rebound said:

Don’t split hairs like that because we aren’t stupid.

Stating fact instead of your rabid hyperbole is not 'splitting hairs' and in fact you are stupid.

Quote

His authority to possess government property, classified or not, ended on January 20, 2021.

Both sides agree that only classified documents needed to be returned. Again - you have to lie to try to make your point and it ruins whatever credibility you have on the subject. 

It's as if you think what he did wasn't actually very bad at all so you have to make it sound worse or something.

 

Quote

After that, WILLFUL and KNOWING possession became a crime. When he subsequently refused to return them despite a court order, he added obstruction to his list of crimes.

No, only refusing to return it was a crime. Again - try using the truth.  And he has a case that he didn't refuse, that it was just a mistake that lead to it not being returned. Truth be told i don't really believe that but he might very well convince a court of it, the facts allow for it.

Quote

Why does he do this stuff? His lawyers told him not to, but he did anyway. 

Well if you mean what he actually likely did rather than the fake shit you come up with ( )  then I honestly don't know. I think he's a bit of a sociopath.  And he's narcissistic.  He likes having those documents, it gives him a feeling of power and makes him feel 'above' others, he doesn't care about the specifics of the law, he'll do whatever he feels is necessary to get what he wants.

Frankly - all presidents have a little of those traits in them, or they'll never climb the steps to being a president.

Hillary was no different, and frankly biden isn't much different either.  They just have it in control enough to not be so obvious about it, and historically political candidates like that don't get charged or looked at too closely.

[BeaverFever]

On 7/5/2023 at 5:34 AM, CdnFox said:

But - these passionate expose's which are PAID btw

Actually they are almost never paid if thy are in the actual news.

Jerry Springer/Oprah Winfrey type venues and tabloids are a different story.  Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Actually they are almost never paid if thy are in the actual news.

Jerry Springer/Oprah Winfrey type venues and tabloids are a different story.  Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Yeah they are. News agencies will fight over them a bit. And they'll make other deals.

Sorry - but people don't generally do this kind of thing for free like that.

[BeaverFever]

On 9/16/2023 at 3:43 PM, CdnFox said:

Yeah they are. News agencies will fight over them a bit. And they'll make other deals.

Sorry - but people don't generally do this kind of thing for free like that.

They have an agenda I’m sure but paid paid by the mews media likely isn’t one of them.  Journalistic standards of just about every mainstream news organization generally prohibit paying for stories. Tabloids like Trump’s buddy the National Enquirer don’t adhere to such standards however. 
 

Thats not saying that someone else didn’t put the whistleblower up to it. There are plenty of anti-Trump factions within the Republican Party and this person might have aligned themselves with one of those   Just about every whistleblower has SOME motive, sometimes it’s just a personal grudge or revenge for some perceived slight. That doesn’t make it false.  
 

This peeps probably kept quiet at first out of loyalty to Trump and then maybe because they didn’t want to get involved or mixed up in any controversy. Now their calculus changed. The passage of time isn’t all that great when you think about it, and its not at all unusual for revelations to come out after some amount of time, sometimes even decades later.   In fact one might that the more damning the revelation the longer it is likely to tale before it comes to light. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

They have an agenda I’m sure but paid paid by the mews media likely isn’t one of them.  Journalistic standards of just about every mainstream news organization generally prohibit paying for stories. Tabloids like Trump’s buddy the National Enquirer don’t adhere to such standards however. 
 

Every major news agency pays for stories - one way or another. Honestly it often goes the other way around as well - "Do a story on me/my company and i'll buy advertising in that issue'.

Sorry but that's just the way it is.  And she's an 'expert' since she wrote that book.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

This peeps probably kept quiet at first out of loyalty to Trump and then maybe because they didn’t want to get involved or mixed up in any controversy.

GIVE ME A BREAK - she wrote a book in 2021 all about trump and talking trash about him.  She turned her work with him into money the FIRST chance she got and had been doing so since. Nobody "put her up" to it, she's been money grubbing since day one.

You very clearly don't know anything about this or how any of this works.

[Nationalist]

On 9/16/2023 at 10:34 AM, Rebound said:

The National Archives issued a statement that your rumor about Obama  is false. A lie, if you will.  
 

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001

Is all that paper still in that warehouse and does Obama have access to it?

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Is all that paper still in that warehouse and does Obama have access to it?

Whatever the law says, dude.

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Whatever the law says, dude.

The law...you death-cultists have no business invoking the law.

[Rebound]

11 hours ago, Nationalist said:

The law...you death-cultists have no business invoking the law.

You insurrectionists have no business overturning the law.