Originally posted by cliffw: AGAIN, for the second time today, I ask what do y'all think the 1st Amendment's right to freedom to assemble mean.
Trump and all the other "January 6" conspirators think the First Amendment guarantees their right to dissemble.
But putting that bon mot aside, what is the motivation behind this question? Is there a specific context that frames this question? Why is it important that forum members weigh in on the First Amendment freedom to assemble?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ...... more than 2,000 of her e-mails were classified, most of them as Top Secret and some with additional caveats, which she was probably not even read into.
He isn't likely going to understand that Todd.
It's going to be even harder for him to understand how someone can be read into only a portion of compartmentalized classified data
Frankly, I don't think it's your, or my, job to attempt to school Leftist clowns on a subject that takes an entire career to really understand.
It's not our job to rescue them from being trapped on the summit of "Mount Stupid"
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-31-2023).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I have to respond to this again... because it's that ridiculous. I'm not trying to be a jerk to you Fred... but I realize there's some ego and pride here, and that you don't like to lose an argument. But you've got to do better here.
It's not a discussion when you're defiantly arguing nonsense on something you essentially have never seen and know absolutely nothing about. And so you do not deflect and try to misrepresent this conversation... we're talking about this sentence right here:
"I also understand the difference between classified information that is labeled as such and that which is not."
Everyone is laughing at you because you're basically insinuating that disclosure of classified information is not a crime, criminal, or malicious, when it's not portion-marked. Which is completely absurd. Classified information is classified... and it doesn't matter if you write it on a Post-It-Note, or it's on a classified network with proper headings and portion markings.
The reason the classified information on Hillary's servers and phones are not all portion marked, is because she asked Huma Abedeen to "transcribe" information from a classified network onto an unclassified medium (text, e-mail, etc.). This is all obvious to the rest of us, so maybe we're taking for granted that you didn't understand this. But it's for this reason why the intelligence agencies (after reviewing her e-mails) found that more than 2,000 of her e-mails were classified, most of them as Top Secret and some with additional caveats, which she was probably not even read into.
You do not deal in facts, Fred... you seem to be dealing in narrative.
Fred can't be here in the office all the time, so I try to cover for him as much as I can.
A good one, eh?
I know what you're thinking:
"With us it is not a matter for levity."
Surely, that is what you are thinking... am I right? But let me get on with these remarks.
Please remark the sentence from 82-T/A that I highlighted with boldface. For additional clarity, I will isolate that sentence:
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: But it's for this reason why the intelligence agencies (after reviewing her e-mails) found that more than 2,000 of her e-mails were classified, most of them as Top Secret and some with additional caveats, which she was probably not even read into.
It's not at all clear to me that this assessment from 82-T/A closely comports with the most well known public statement on the Clinton emails investigation from (former) FBI Director James Comey. Here's an excerpt from that statement:
quote
From the group of 30,000 [Hillary Clinton] e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
That may not be as grotesque a discrepancy as comparing "apples to oranges," but I think it's very similar, metaphorically speaking, to comparing "tangerines to tangelos" or "nectarines to peaches."
Is that point well taken? I hope so.
I think it's well to be able to review the famous statement from former FBI Director Comey, so for everyone's convenience, here's an Internet page link: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pr...rsonal-e-mail-system
If these remarks have been of any assistance to the forum in its inquiries, I am keen to express my gratitude at being afforded the opportunity to help.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-31-2023).]
Hypothetical: The Mar-a-Lago documents case, in which Donald Trump is one of three defendants, goes to trial.
Two questions come to mind, for "you" the forum member; to wit:
Do you expect Trump's defense lawyers to try to bring Hillary Clinton's emails case into the trial, and argue that the indictments of Donald Trump are inconsistent with a DOJ precedent that is characterized by the DOJ's declination of charges against Hillary Clinton at the end of that investigation in 2016? (Declination, meaning the DOJ's decision not to bring charges against Hillary Clinton.)
Having made a campaign issue, during the 2016 presidential election, of Hillary Clinton's irresponsible and even allegedly criminal mishandling of classified information, does it not seem all that much more hypocritical and egregious on the part of Donald Trump, for having gone off the tracks himself (so to speak) in a roughly similar way, at the end of his presidency in 2021?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-01-2023).]
It's just the latest gibberish from DumbNet. Or InstaDumb. Whatever Internet destination(s) that certain forum member(s) look to, to keep themselves up to date on the latest "dumb."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-01-2023).]
sure is a lot of name-calling here. i'm reminded of why i left here.
THE DELUSION
most of the world sees the democratic party as center RIGHT
ONE CAN SEE THE DELUSIONS OF THE EXTREME RIGHT who want to call the demo's leftist or in randy babbal leftoid the same guy who told us there was no 1-6 rebellion just tourists and he claims the criminal rump was a great leader but will not say how much the rump has grifted from him
Surely, that is what you are thinking... am I right? But let me get on with these remarks.
I don't know what this means, and I don't know what movie this is from. And I hope you're not referencing me as a NAZI?
My dad was born in a shed during the NAZI occupation of the Netherlands, because the NAZIs had taken over the family's industrial factory, and were using their home as a field hospital, and forced my grandparents and uncles/aunts into a shed in the back of the property. My grandfather on the other side of the family served in WW2 in the OSS when he was in the NAVY. So what is it you are insinuating here? Should I be offended, or were you making a joke?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Please remark the sentence from 82-T/A that I highlighted with boldface. For additional clarity, I will isolate that sentence:
"But it's for this reason why the intelligence agencies (after reviewing her e-mails) found that more than 2,000 of her e-mails were classified, most of them as Top Secret and some with additional caveats, which she was probably not even read into."
It's not at all clear to me that this assessment from 82-T/A closely comports with the most well known public statement on the Clinton emails investigation from (former) FBI Director James Comey. Here's an excerpt from that statement:
quote
From the group of 30,000 [Hillary Clinton] e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
First, I want to thank you for acknowledging, and repeating the facts here... which are REALLY, REALLY bad, but let's itemize from your quote:
- 30,000 emails returned ... these were the e-mails that they were actually ABLE to get that weren't deleted when she used BleachBit, and / or smashed her phones. - 110 emails contained classified information, 1/4th of which was TOP SECRET, and 3/4ths that were SECRET - Another 2000 e-mails were later considered CONFIDENTIAL. So you know, this is because the combination of information, when used together in context, makes the information classified, which she would know.
So in total then, there were over 2110 classified e-mails... OF the ones they actually could get access to after they did forensics.
A lady who worked for the state department, took home a couple of SECRET documents from work (a couple). There was no intention to share, she just took them home to read / study them for work. She was sentenced to three months in prison, fined, and lost her job.
Please explain to me how this is different, and how Hillary, with 2110 classified e-mails on a totally unclassified device did not get any jail time? I'd also like to reinforce again, that it's impossible for classified e-mails to simply show up on an unclassified device. There is no mechanism for classified documents to end up on an unclassified device unless they are deliberately put there, meaning someone printed/scanned, transcribed, or took pictures (and for that matter, personal phones should never be in a SCIF... another violation from Hillary Clinton).
Please explain away...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 09-01-2023).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: [What 82-T/A said]
Oh, I was joking. The photograph is a scene from "The Great Escape."
Hillary Clinton did not use BleachBit to delete any emails after they were subpoenaed by the House "Benghazi" committee. The person who did that was a Platte River Networks employee, who according to the reports, was directed by Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills—before the subpoena was issued—to delete all of the archived Clinton emails that were older than 60 days. This Platte River Networks employee put that on his mental "to do" list, but soon—if not instantly—forgot about it.
Later, after the subpoena had been issued, this Platte River Networks employee had what he described to the FBI as an "oh s---" moment, remembered that directive from Cheryl Mills, and belatedly deleted all of the archived Clinton emails. The FBI was unable to conclude that Hillary Clinton directed anyone to delete archived emails after she received the subpoena from the Benghazi committee.
I agree that classified State Department documents or emails, in their entirety or in part, could not have been copied onto Hillary Clinton's private emails system except by someone purposely doing the copying. But the FBI was unable to conclude that this was an intentional violation. If it was Hillary Clinton herself, or her aide Huma Abedin that did the copying, the FBI could not exclude the possibility that the classified status of the material that was being copied was inadvertently overlooked. They could have thought that they were copying stuff that wasn't classified. Mens rea. Or in this case, women's rea.
I think there was an institutional imbalance of power that I hope has since been corrected. It would seem that the IT security specialists at the State Department (there must have been some), who would not have been political appointees—rather, career civil servants—did not stand up to the highest ranking political appointee in the State Department; namely, Hillary Clinton. I won't say that I am on expert on the case, by any means—but that's my "take." My theory of the case.
I want to end by repeating something I already posted.
Hypothetical: The Mar-a-Lago documents case, in which Donald Trump is one of three defendants, goes to trial.
Two questions come to mind, for "you" the forum member; to wit:
Do you expect Trump's defense lawyers to try to bring Hillary Clinton's emails case into the trial, and argue that the indictments of Donald Trump are inconsistent with a DOJ precedent that is characterized by the DOJ's declination of charges against Hillary Clinton at the end of that investigation in 2016? (Declination, meaning the DOJ's decision not to bring charges against Hillary Clinton.)
Having made a campaign issue, during the 2016 presidential election, of Hillary Clinton's irresponsible and even allegedly criminal mishandling of classified information, does it not seem all that much more hypocritical and egregious on the part of Donald Trump, for having gone off the tracks himself (so to speak) in a roughly similar way, at the end of his presidency in 2021?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-01-2023).]
Two questions come to mind, for "you" the forum member; to wit:
Do you expect Trump's defense lawyers to try to bring Hillary Clinton's emails case into the trial, and argue that the indictments of Donald Trump are inconsistent with a DOJ precedent that is characterized by the DOJ's declination of charges against Hillary Clinton at the end of that investigation in 2016? (Declination, meaning the DOJ's decision not to bring charges against Hillary Clinton.)
Having made a campaign issue, during the 2016 presidential election, of Hillary Clinton's irresponsible and even allegedly criminal mishandling of classified information, does it not seem all that much more hypocritical and egregious on the part of Donald Trump, for having gone off the tracks himself (so to speak) in a roughly similar way, at the end of his presidency in 2021?
I actually don't think it will amount to anything. I actually think the DOJ will drop the charges, or at the very least, drag it out past the election and then drop the charges. At this point, if Trump wins (or some other Republican), Democrats can then claim injustice that Trump was let off the hook by Republicans. I think the entire goal of the DOJ investigation is entirely political, and an attempt to harm Trump going into the election (though it is having the opposite effect).
Here is my reasoning, in comparison to Hillary Clinton:
- Trump's office, where they found the documents, had a SCIF accreditation. If I'm being completely fair, Mar-a-Largo does not meet a lot of TEMPEST requirements for a SCIF, but most of these are waived for necessity. This is not something necessarily done just because Trump was president. I've been in a SCIF that was quite literally a wooden shack in the middle of a tropical jungle that was being eaten by termites, that I could see daylight under the door threshold, and accessed classified networks from. So they make exception due to need / requirement. Never the less, Trump's office was a SCIF, and therefore allowed to store, retrieve, and view classified information there. Hillary's bathroom was NOT a SCIF.
- Trump's documents were all printed documents, no classified documents of Trump's were ever found on a digital medium. On the other hand, Hillary's classified documents were all on unclassified phones, servers, etc... being transmitted across unencrypted channels.
- The DOJ's issue with Trump is that he did not "return" documents. What the media doesn't really talk about is that all of these documents are print-outs from classified networks. So, these are copies. The National Archives already receives copies of anything generated by Trump (or government officials). So there was nothing to "return," but perhaps they just want him to destroy these documents.
- More importantly... the President of the United States (which Trump was at the time), has SOLE authority on classified information. There is no one in the government more senior than the president about what is classified ... not even Congress. That's because classified information is a construct of the executive branch, and is not defined in law anywhere, but in fact by executive order. As the senior-most authority of classified information, the relevancy of the information being classified is irrelevant... and the national archives argument ends up only being a matter of whether or not Trump HAS documents that they feel belong to them (not on whether they're classified in the first place). Alternately... and this is important. The state department does NOT generate classified information. I won't go into any more detail. That means that all of the information that Hillary had was not hers to do with as she wanted. This is a larger conversation, but the head of each agency has some autonomy on declassification and handling of documents. For example, the director of the FBI has the authority to declassify documents on his own without Presidential approval... so long as those documents CAME from the FBI. Granted, if the President tells him/her NOT to declassify, the FBI director would need to oblige. But all of those documents that Hillary had belonged to other agencies, so she is not afforded that same autonomy.
Bottom line... the idea of classification was created in haste by President Truman after WW2 with the onset of the Cold War and Communism. This was done through Executive Order, and has never been codified into law by the Legislative Branch. To really fix this problem, Congress could pass a law defining the rules under their own guidelines... but they've never done this. Every president since Truman has kind of enjoyed the benefits of being the top of the pyramid for this. But to a great extent, it makes sense. ALL of these agencies belong to the executive branch, and NOT the legislative branch... so it really is the president's information. It's up to Congress on whether or not they want to take back some of that power and limit the power of the executive agencies. Over the past ~200+ years, we've moved slowly more and more towards executive authority, and further away from legislative authority.
EDIT: I actually think Georgia will legitimately try to prosecute Trump for election stuff, but I think the DOJ's case on classified documents is just political and won't actually go anywhere (and my opinion is that they're well aware of this too, and don't really intend for it to go anywhere).
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 09-01-2023).]
I don't need you to educate me on anything. I have Comey's testimony. He knows more about this than either of you.
That's HILARIOUS!
Because you have read the public comments by a corrupt FBI Director on the internet you somehow now believe that you know everything there is to know about handling classified materials.
There is a very special word for that: Click to show
.
PEEKING AT THE REAL WORLD THROUGH A TINY KEYHOLE
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-01-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Trump and all the other "January 6" conspirators think the First Amendment guarantees their right to dissemble.['/quote]
You don't ?
But putting that bon mot aside, what is the motivation behind this question? Is there a specific context that frames this question? Why is it important that forum members weigh in on the First Amendment freedom to assemble?
Because you have read the public comments by a corrupt FBI Director on the internet you somehow now believe that you know everything there is to know about handling classified materials.
Oh, I see, I am supposed to ignore testimony from Congressional hearings and instead believe random dudes on a message board who have proven that they belief system is based on party affiliation instead of facts?
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I have been correcting you rubes ever since I showed up here, but now I am supposed to believe that you know more about an investigation that the person who conducted the investigation?
Originally posted by rinselberg: I do say that I consider the Electoral College a useless and harmful anachronism and an element of presidential elections that should be abolished for the betterment of the nation.
Why ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: When I posted my mind on this quite some years ago, I got support for it from one of the forum's most venerable members, who is among your fellow Texans.
Is that supposed to to impress me about you beliefs ? How much support ? From whom ? C'mon, impress me.
Originally posted by cliffw: I do not know why other people can not understand the purpose of the Electoral College. Every State had a voice in joining to becoming the United States.
I want to mention the First Amendment to the Constitution. In which includes the right to peaceable assembly.
I am curious. What does that mean to you / the forum at large ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Trump and all the other "January 6" conspirators think the First Amendment guarantees their right to dissemble.
But putting that bon mot aside, what is the motivation behind this question? Is there a specific context that frames this question? Why is it important that forum members weigh in on the First Amendment freedom to assemble?
Mr. Big Word Man, Dissemble ? Where in the First Amendment does it guarantee a right to dissemble ?
Originally posted by cliffw: Mr. Big Word Man, Dissemble? Where in the First Amendment does it guarantee a right to dissemble? Are you avoiding answering my question?
I predict that some of the first news reporting of 2024 will be the courtroom trial on the four federal criminal charges from DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith, all related to the 2020 presidential election. Donald Trump will be the only defendant in this trial.
I predict that Trump's defense lawyers will offer a First Amendment defense for Donald Trump, arguing that all of his words and actions were within the bounds of his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
I predict that the jury will not be swayed by these arguments.
I predict that I will agree with the jury when they convict Donald Trump, and so demonstrate that they are not swayed by any of these First Amendment arguments.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-03-2023).]
"A SCIF was established at Mar-a-Lago, but it operated as a secure facility only during the Trump presidency."
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: - The DOJ's issue with Trump is that he did not "return" documents. What the media doesn't really talk about is that all of these documents are print-outs from classified networks. So, these are copies. The National Archives already receives copies of anything generated by Trump (or government officials). So there was nothing to "return," but perhaps they just want him to destroy these documents.
Trump is charged under 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally, because he refused to comply with a subpoena and intentionally hid the documents from investigators.
Is it your opinion as an "expert" that Trump could legally take classified documents from the US government and keep them without permission after he was no longer President, and them lie about having them? I find that very hard to believe. Doesn't the United States government kind of want to keep track of where these document are even if they are "just copies"?
"Under the Presidential Records Act, the Archivist of the United States assumed legal custody of all Trump White House official records immediately upon President Biden's swearing in as President," Baron said. "Every piece of paper constituting an official document, whether it was classified or unclassified, should have been turned over to NARA. Moreover, when NARA staff asked for the return of the records improperly taken, the former President should have immediately given NARA every official document in his possession."
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 09-03-2023).]
- More importantly... the President of the United States (which Trump was at the time), has SOLE authority on classified information.
Trump has also been charged under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) of the Espionage Act, which prohibits unauthorized retention and disclosure of national defense information, and does not require that information be classified
So it will be interesting to see what was in those documents that trump was trying to hide from investigators.
And this brings me to my biggest question for you. If Trump was not doing anything wrong why did he lie about having these documents and try to hide them?
Originally posted by fredtoast: Trump is charged under 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally, because he refused to comply with a subpoena and intentionally hid the documents from investigators.
Is it your opinion as an "expert" that Trump could legally take classified documents from the US government and keep them without permission after he was no longer President, and them lie about having them? I find that very hard to believe. Doesn't the United States government kind of want to keep track of where these document are even if they are "just copies"?
"Under the Presidential Records Act, the Archivist of the United States assumed legal custody of all Trump White House official records immediately upon President Biden's swearing in as President," Baron said. "Every piece of paper constituting an official document, whether it was classified or unclassified, should have been turned over to NARA. Moreover, when NARA staff asked for the return of the records improperly taken, the former President should have immediately given NARA every official document in his possession."
LOL, Fred, give it a rest. Both you and I know that this won't lead to anything at the DOJ. You absolutely know what this is... as much as you hate Trump and want to see him in prison, it does not take a special kind of genius to see this for what it is. You are as well-aware as I am, that this is nonsense.
All former presidents maintain a SCIF in their home. President Obama has a SCIF in his D.C. townhouse. If the SCIF was "decertified," it was because Biden hated his guts and wanted to end it quickly. Everything that's there was brought there when Trump was still president. Everything he has there, he said he declassified... which would have been his right to do with as he please.
You can respond to this however you'd like... but everyone here, including you... knows that these are basically nonsense charges that don't apply in this situation, and are only being leveraged to hurt his chances of running again.
LOL, Fred, give it a rest. Both you and I know that this won't lead to anything at the DOJ. You absolutely know what this is... as much as you hate Trump and want to see him in prison, it does not take a special kind of genius to see this for what it is. You are as well-aware as I am, that this is nonsense.
All former presidents maintain a SCIF in their home. President Obama has a SCIF in his D.C. townhouse. If the SCIF was "decertified," it was because Biden hated his guts and wanted to end it quickly. Everything that's there was brought there when Trump was still president. Everything he has there, he said he declassified... which would have been his right to do with as he please.
You can respond to this however you'd like... but everyone here, including you... knows that these are basically nonsense charges that don't apply in this situation, and are only being leveraged to hurt his chances of running again.
Where do you get this stuff? From social media?
I think that the DOJ, under AG Merrick Garland, was very reluctant to take it to the level of an FBI search and then the indictments. Eventually, they ran out of patience and realized that Trump had no intention of complying with the Presidential Records Act and of voluntarily returning all of the documents that he was known or suspected of having in his possession.
I don't know how much more delay there could be before an actual courtroom trial could get started.
It's very possible that even if Trump is convicted on all of these Mar-a-Lago documents charges, the judge will not sentence him to any confinement. Maybe he would just get hit with a monetary fine. It would be a big monetary fine if they actually made it commensurate with all the time, effort and resources that the DOJ has used on this case.
I think it would be fitting if he had to serve a period of house arrest at Mar-a-Lago, and with severe restrictions on what he could do and who would be able to visit with him. It would be like the sequel to "Home Alone."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-05-2023).]
BY REBELLING HE DISCOED HIM SELF FROM RUNNING AGAIN
BY LAW NO BY CONSTITUTION
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
HE DID GIVE FAR MORE THEN
AID OR COMFORT TO REBELLION
HE STARTED IT HE ORGANIZED IT HE POINTED IT AND SET IN MOTION THE REBELLION FOR THE RUMP BY THE RUMP A 100% RUMP REBELLION
I think that the DOJ, under AG Merrick Garland, was very reluctant to take it to the level of an FBI search and then the indictments. Eventually, they ran out of patience and realized that Trump had no intention of complying with the Presidential Records Act and of voluntarily returning all of the documents that he was known or suspected of having in his possession.
I don't know how much more delay there could be before an actual courtroom trial could get started.
It's very possible that even if Trump is convicted on all of these Mar-a-Lago documents charges, the judge will not sentence him to any confinement. Maybe he would just get hit with a monetary fine. It would be a big monetary fine if they actually made it commensurate with all the time, effort and resources that the DOJ has used on this case.
I think it would be fitting if he had to serve a period of house arrest at Mar-a-Lago, and with severe restrictions on what he could do and who would be able to visit with him. It would be like the sequel to "Home Alone."
Rinse... if Trump goes to jail, or is 14th Amendmented because of the DOJ, I'll send you $100 bucks. Otherwise, you send me $100 bucks. Want to take that bet?
I'm more than happy to take that bet, but I don't think you will, because I think ALL of us here know this is just nonsense to hurt his chances for being reelected.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Rinse... if Trump goes to jail, or is 14th Amendmented because of the DOJ, I'll send you $100 bucks. Otherwise, you send me $100 bucks. Want to take that bet?
I'm more than happy to take that bet, but I don't think you will, because I think ALL of us here know this is just nonsense to hurt his chances for being reelected.
ONLY BECAUSE HE CAN AND will fight until dead to avoid prison and has the money to cheat the system by doing that
but lets get the congress- critters who did aid and support the 1-6 rebellion more the 1/2 the Gop did do that
and their most vocal supporters paid aids or volunteers no matter and funders too
Rinse... if Trump goes to jail, or is 14th Amendmented because of the DOJ, I'll send you $100 bucks. Otherwise, you send me $100 bucks. Want to take that bet?
I'm more than happy to take that bet, but I don't think you will, because I think ALL of us here know this is just nonsense to hurt his chances for being reelected.
Come on Todd, put your money where your mouth is. You're so keen to bet on Trump... let's do it !
There is NO chance that Donald J Trump will ever get elected as POTUS again. Absolutely no chance. Zip, Zilch, Nada.
If anyone would care to bet $100(US) against my claim, to be paid into Cliff Pennock's Beer Fund, now's the time to speak up.
And if Cliff Pennock would agree to this, I suggest a permanent banishment from PFF to the loser of this bet if payment is not made within 30 days of the conclusion of the next US presidential election.
By the way, this bet is open to any established PFF member.
Come on Todd, put your money where your mouth is. You're so keen to bet on Trump... let's do it !
Nope, not doing that... because I know how this will end up.
Joe Biden will drop out at the last minute, and they'll replace him with Gavin Newsom, a young(er) politician who's dynamic and great at bull shitting. Everyone here knows that Joe Biden isn't actually running for another 4 years. They'll pick a guy like Newsom that 90% of the country has absolutely no idea who he is... and then they'll see Trump, whom every media outlet will be portraying as the most corrupt politician in the entire world... and Gavin Newsom will win. There's a reason why he's been visiting the white house like some 20+ times and almost always when Joe Biden is not even there.
But I will bet $100 that Trump doesn't see a day in jail, because all of this is basically nonsense... and everyone here knows it too.
because all of this is basically nonsense... and everyone here knows it too.
I wasn't going to say anything... but you nailed it!
When the far right at PFF won't even back him up, Trump doesn't have a hope in hell across the nation of being elected. This is not an issue for narcissistic Donald though. All he's really interested in is publicity... good, bad or otherwise.
I wasn't going to say anything... but you nailed it!
When the far right at PFF won't even back him up, Trump doesn't have a hope in hell across the nation of being elected. This is not an issue for narcissistic Donald though. All he's really interested in is publicity... good, bad or otherwise.
Obviously, you totally misrepresented what I said here... which ironically, is something you always get really upset about when others do it to you. Not mad obviously... but I need to call it out when I see it.
