FBI investigation data in Rollingstone article

[Aldebaran]

It doesn't seem to be the case.

Which is why the Judge signed off on a warrant to raid his property and confiscate these documents.
It will be interesting to see if D Trump gets criminally prosecuted for this. He certainly has compromised national security secrets.

Ah yes, the judge who once represented Jeffrey Epstein and those around him:

"In November 2018, the Miami Herald reported that Reinhart had represented a number of Epstein's employees, including his pilots; his scheduler, Sarah Kellen; and Nadia Marcinkova, whom the disgraced financier reportedly once described as his "Yugoslavian sex slave."
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-fbi/2022/08/09/id/1082374/

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't know about you, but down here we call it 'voting'. The winner takes the prize, the loser accepts the decision of the people and we all move on.

Yes, but here in America, a precedent has been set in denying election results:
https://gop.com/research/over-150-examples-of-democrats-denying-election-results-rsr/

 

[stevil]

The protest at the capitol was simply people wanting their voices to be heard. They didn't burn anything down or kill anyone to accomplish that either.

No, that is naive. Why then did the Oathkeepers plead guilty to seditious conspiracy?

 

[stevil]

Ah yes, the judge who once represented Jeffrey Epstein and those around him:

"In November 2018, the Miami Herald reported that Reinhart had represented a number of Epstein's employees, including his pilots; his scheduler, Sarah Kellen; and Nadia Marcinkova, whom the disgraced financier reportedly once described as his "Yugoslavian sex slave."
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-fbi/2022/08/09/id/1082374/

Sorry, I'm struggling to find a link here between what I said and your response.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, that is naive. Why then did the Oathkeepers plead guilty to seditious conspiracy?

People plead guilty all the time as part of a plea-deal if their lawyer is convinced that they'd either lose the case, or that an impartial jury would be hard to come by, or a good deal was enough to satisfy the client. Happens all the time.

 

[Aldebaran]

Sorry, I'm struggling to find a link here between what I said and your response.

Same judge, just as I said.

 

[stevil]

Same judge, just as I said.

As exciting as that is, I expect judges didn't just magically appear from nowhere to be presiding over a single case and have no history.

 

[Aldebaran]

As exciting as that is, I expect judges didn't just magically appear from nowhere to be presiding over a single case and have no history.

I guess you don't see the connection or the conflict of interest.
Anyway, good day to you!

 

[stevil]

People plead guilty all the time as part of a plea-deal if their lawyer is convinced that they'd either lose the case, or that an impartial jury would be hard to come by, or a good deal was enough to satisfy the client. Happens all the time.

What? They pled guilty if "an imparial jury would be hard to come by"? Really?
A good lawyer will argue against the possibility of an impartial jury, would argue for a mistrial or a retrial. They won't just advise their client to plead guilty.

Seditious conspiracy is a doozy of a crime, not one that a person would voluntarily plead to in order to avoid a higher charge. For example a person might plead guilty to manslaughter to avoid a charge of murder.

 

[stevil]

I guess you don't see the connection or the conflict of interest.
Anyway, good day to you!

No, what does Epstein and Trump have to do with each other?

 

[DaisyDay]

Which he had the right to do.

When he was still president, he may have had the right to have them at his resort/golf club/cemetary, but he was obligated to store them securely in the manner laid out by law. Once he was out of office, he was not allowed to hide them in his wife's underwear drawer or under his child's mattress.

 

[Bradskii]

People plead guilty all the time as part of a plea-deal if their lawyer is convinced that they'd either lose the case, or that an impartial jury would be hard to come by, or a good deal was enough to satisfy the client. Happens all the time.

This is beyond my comprehension. Someone actually admits to sedition and you say it's a plea deal? Do you actually want us to accept that as a serious argument?

 

[DaisyDay]

Ah yes, the judge who once represented Jeffrey Epstein and those around him:

"In November 2018, the Miami Herald reported that Reinhart had represented a number of Epstein's employees, including his pilots; his scheduler, Sarah Kellen; and Nadia Marcinkova, whom the disgraced financier reportedly once described as his "Yugoslavian sex slave."
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-fbi/2022/08/09/id/1082374/

1) He did not represent Jeffrey Epstein.
2) Poisoning the well? Why would that have made any difference any way?

I guess you don't see the connection or the conflict of interest.
Anyway, good day to you!

No, please explain - what is the conflict of interest?

 

[Aldebaran]

When he was still president, he may have had the right to have them at his resort/golf club/cemetary, but he was obligated to store them securely in the manner laid out by law. Once he was out of office, he was not allowed to hide them in his wife's underwear drawer or under his child's mattress.

Since he didn't, I don't understand why you mention it.

 

[DaisyDay]

Since he didn't, I don't understand why you mention it.

How do you know he didn't? We don't know what was found where.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, but here in America, a precedent has been set in denying election results:
https://gop.com/research/over-150-examples-of-democrats-denying-election-results-rsr/

Could you please respond to the post earlier?

 

[Aldebaran]

Could you please respond to the post earlier?

I already replied as fast as I could.

 

[Aldebaran]

How do you know he didn't? We don't know what was found where.

Yet you claimed to know, remember?

When he was still president, he may have had the right to have them at his resort/golf club/cemetary, but he was obligated to store them securely in the manner laid out by law. Once he was out of office, he was not allowed to hide them in his wife's underwear drawer or under his child's mattress.

 

[dqhall]

Empty rhetoric, which Putin recognized. US military is not actually involved and hopefully never will be.

Don’t believe the U.S. and it’s NATO allies are not opposing Putin. The U.S. military is providing indirect support. There is a bipartisan effort opposing Putin’s plan to retake ground held by the USSR.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yet you claimed to know, remember?

That is not a claim of knowledge of where he hid anything, only of where it was not allowed.

Are you claiming he only hid things where he wasn't allowed to?