- Oct 2, 2020
- 27,429
- 14,984
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
My conclusion is based on there being a lack of evidence of "nuclear documents".
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My conclusion is based on there being a lack of evidence of "nuclear documents".Can you post the complete text of all the documents in question? If not, what evidence are you looking at to come to this conclusion?
Could there be any other possible reasons the government is keeping the contents of top secret documents secret?My conclusion is based on there being a lack of evidence of "nuclear documents".
Lying about there being no remaining top secret documents in his possession after being told they must be returned is showing he had no intent to keep them? You're gonna have to show your work, because taken at face value that makes no sense at all.You're making his case for him.
Yes. Why would you conclude that top secret would only be regulated to "nuclear documents"?Could there be any other possible reasons the government is keeping the contents of top secret documents secret?
No, his list of speculative alternatives was wrong. The entire premise of the thread, including especially the original title, was wrong. There was never any reason to think that any leak at all had happened and the suggestion that someone in the FBI had leaked the information in question was simply bearing false witness. This doesn't bother you at all -- in fact, you find it amusing that people here are upset by falsehood. That tells me everything I need to know.That's called conjecture. If the OP is wrong about that, it just means his speculation was incorrect.
I haven't concluded anything. I was asking how you were so confident that the claims were false. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is an interesting approach.Yes. Why would you conclude that top secret would only be regulated to "nuclear documents"?
I think it was simply a blunder. I've made the same kind of mistake myself. Was sure an article or Bible passage said something it didn't. I don't see it as grounds for anyone to throw a tantrum.No, his list of speculative alternatives was wrong. The entire premise of the thread, including especially the original title, was wrong. There was never any reason to think that any leak at all had happened and the suggestion that someone in the FBI had leaked the information in question was simply bearing false witness. This doesn't bother you at all -- in fact, you find it amusing that people here are upset by falsehood. That tells me everything I need to know.
I'm saying there's no evidence of the "nuclear document" claim. Nor is there any evidence that the documents contain anything Trump could have sold to Russia. It sounded like you thought only "nuclear documents" would be classified as top secret.I haven't concluded anything. I was asking how you were so confident that the claims were false. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is an interesting approach.
Who said it him or his lawyers?Lying about there being no remaining top secret documents in his possession after being told they must be returned is showing he had no intent to keep them? You're gonna have to show your work, because taken at face value that makes no sense at all.
You're making his case for him.
More problems for his lawyers.Somebody has to, because it won't be Christina Bobb any more.
Three people close to Trump acknowledged that Bobb and Corcoran could be in trouble and said Bobb is no longer expected to play a role in Trump’s legal defense. “Christina is not going to be on the motions going forward,” one of the people said.
Somebody has to, because it won't be Christina Bobb any more.
Three people close to Trump acknowledged that Bobb and Corcoran could be in trouble and said Bobb is no longer expected to play a role in Trump’s legal defense. “Christina is not going to be on the motions going forward,” one of the people said.
The ones I've seen on television are all young, attractive females. Maybe he needs to change his criteria.Should not be a problem for someone who only hires the best. There is no shortage of outstanding lawyers waiting to be picked up by team Trump.
You noticed that, too?The ones I've seen on television are all young, attractive females. Maybe he needs to change his criteria.
I did a Ctri+F word search on both the warrant and affidavit, and “President of France" is not written in either of them. I'm not saying it wasn't made public. I've just been saying that info is not in the warrant or affidavit.
How is a leak not making info public? What you mean is neither law nor protocol was broken.
No one is throwing a tantrum. If it was a blunder, the OP would have corrected it.I think it was simply a blunder. I've made the same kind of mistake myself. Was sure an article or Bible passage said something it didn't. I don't see it as grounds for anyone to throw a tantrum.
You know that the Russia investigation was the FBI investigating because a Republican official said stuff to some Australians, and later the investigation was re-instigated by the Republican Acting Attorney General, who maintained oversight of the investigation and made sure it focused on non Donald Trump members of the Trump presidential campaign.Russia Russia Russia
Carter Page - WikipediaYou know that the Russia investigation was the FBI investigating because a Republican official said stuff to some Australians, and later the investigation was re-instigated by the Republican Acting Attorney General, who maintained oversight of the investigation and made sure it focused on non Donald Trump members of the Trump presidential campaign.
Yeah, I know all about the Carter Page surveillance incident.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?