Trump Raid updates

[BPPLEE]

Lots of people go out of their way to seek "both sides" of a story.
That doesn't mean they go to Fox news opinion shows, or Brietbart. But they find a claim, they then use those key words and add "debunk" into their search, or "fact check" or whatever.

I mean most people on this site are paying attention to the claims against Trump and these documents as well as to the defences Trump has counter claimed, and the defences some Republican allies have been presenting.

Some people have already made up their minds and nothing is going to change them.

 

[stevil]

Some people have already made up their minds and nothing is going to change them.

Yes it appears so, because they don't trust govt, or govt organisations or free media, they don't research and they don't use critical thinking.

They just listen to one or two people. If someone says anything that is contradictory to the message by those two people then all of a sudden that person becomes a RINO or a never Trumper, or a Trump hater, or a radical liberal.

That's the problem, not willing to listen to anyone that says different, immediately labelling them as the "enemy", polarising and politicising everything. If a person goes down this path then they are gone likely for ever. If enough people go down this path then you have civil war.

 

[rjs330]

Part of the problem these days is very few have proven themselves to have integrity and trustworthiness. Much of the mainstream media has proven themselves to be untrustworthy over and over again

The FBI has proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

The justice department had proven itself to be untrustworthy.

Trump has proven himself to be untrustworthy.

And when two untrustworthy sides clash you don't really know who to believe. In this case I don't trust anyone. I don't trust the medias stories. I don't trust the Justice departments version. I don't trust the FBI nmclaims. I dont Trust Trumps claims of declassification of everything.

I don't want stories any more. I want proof. If Trump indeed broke laws I want him prosecuted. I want a trial where everything is presented. Where the evidence is actually in our faces so we can see it and not just some lacky saying it's there.

If the DOJ does not prosecute then I going to believe they don't have the evidence they claimed and they all lied to us AGAIN

 

[wing2000]

The FBI has proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

The justice department had proven itself to be untrustworthy.

Trump has proven himself to be untrustworthy.

And when two untrustworthy sides clash you don't really know who to believe

I don't buy or accept that rationalization for a second.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Part of the problem these days is very few have proven themselves to have integrity and trustworthiness. Much of the mainstream media has proven themselves to be untrustworthy over and over again

The FBI has proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

The justice department had proven itself to be untrustworthy.

Trump has proven himself to be untrustworthy.

And when two untrustworthy sides clash you don't really know who to believe. In this case I don't trust anyone. I don't trust the medias stories. I don't trust the Justice departments version. I don't trust the FBI nmclaims. I dont Trust Trumps claims of declassification of everything.

I don't want stories any more. I want proof. If Trump indeed broke laws I want him prosecuted. I want a trial where everything is presented. Where the evidence is actually in our faces so we can see it and not just some lacky saying it's there.

If the DOJ does not prosecute then I going to believe they don't have the evidence they claimed and they all lied to us AGAIN

Then why care? Why even post anything about it? You can't know anything. Everyone is lying (it's even in my sig!). What's the point in even engaging?

 

[BPPLEE]

Then why care? Why even post anything about it? You can't know anything. Everyone is lying (it's even in my sig!). What's the point in even engaging?

Which of the parties mentioned in his post has shown themselves to be trustworthy?

 

[rjs330]

I don't buy or accept that rationalization for a second.

What rationalization is that?

 

[rjs330]

Then why care? Why even post anything about it? You can't know anything. Everyone is lying (it's even in my sig!). What's the point in even engaging?

We should all care. We should care and it should matter to us about when we can't trust people involved. We should all want the truth and not some version given to us by untrustworthy sources.

I'm being more honest than quite a few who only trust their side. And that was the point. I could just trust mine. Then we could argue and debate all you want.

And I'm talking about THIS topic. Not every topic. And in this topic all those involved are suspect. If you don't see that then you should check your bias.

Trump supporters who only suspect the FBI and DOJ should check their bias. Those who only suspect Trump should check theirs.

And we ALL should want to see the evidence and we should all want to see justice done. Cause if Trump broke the law and does not get prosecuted then we should all be upset at the DOJ. And we should wonder if the DOJ was corrupt in the case. With all of this happening the DOJ better be on to something, otherwise they are just coming after someone without probable cause of a crime.

Right now I don't trust them. And I don't Trust Trump. I don't actually know who to believe at this point. If you do them you should be checking your bias.

 

[wing2000]

What rationalization is that?

This. You seem to be suggesting the FBI-DOJ deserve the same level of mistrust as Donald Trump.

The FBI has proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

The justice department had proven itself to be untrustworthy.

Trump has proven himself to be untrustworthy.

And when two untrustworthy sides clash you don't really know who to believe. In this case I don't trust anyone. I don't trust the medias stories. I don't trust the Justice departments version. I don't trust the FBI nmclaims. I dont Trust Trumps claims of declassification of everything.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

This. You seem to be suggesting the FBI-DOJ deserve the same level of mistrust as Donald Trump.

Well why not? After all, Trump did turn the Justice Department into his personal law firm and he did appoint the FBI director.

 

[stevil]

Part of the problem these days is very few have proven themselves to have integrity and trustworthiness. Much of the mainstream media has proven themselves to be untrustworthy over and over again

Main Stream Media is not really a thing.
You have various Media companies, they aren't necessarily tied together.

Typically media outlets have journalism, opinion pieces,
The journalism side is high on news and facts (typically)
The opinion pieces are high on opinions and persuasion and sometimes manipulation, and perhaps lies.

For example, a piece of journalism would report that the FBI is investigating whether members of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign were collaborating with the Russians in their attempts to interfere in the 2016 USA presidential election.
Or a journalist might report that the FBI have raided Maralago in search for confidential documents.

An opinion show might muse that the FBI are trying to influence the mid term elections, might muse that Marrick Garland has a grudge against Trump <for whatever reason>

Journalists are more culpable with regards to defamation, whereas some opinion show hosts (Tucker Carlson) have successfully argued in court that people don't expect to get the truth from him

So if you are looking for factual information you should seek out journalism rather than opinion shows.
And then rather than worry about the media company, you should note down the key points or claims made, and then do your own research. See if other media outlets are saying the same points or claims, see if other media outlets are debunking these claims.

It takes a bit of effort, but it is possible to do.

The FBI has proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

The justice department had proven itself to be untrustworthy.

No person or organisation is infallible. Mistakes are sometimes made. It doesn't mean you should write off completely the organisation.

Trump has proven himself to be untrustworthy.

Trump is defending himself, he has the ultimate motive to lie and distract. He doesn't seem to be making valid points when he argues he has declassified things merely by taking them out of the office and into his house. Or when he lies about Obama's handling of documents.

And when two untrustworthy sides clash you don't really know who to believe.

Perhaps you need to learn how to research, how to verify, how to debunk? How to tell journalism from opinion???

If the DOJ does not prosecute then I going to believe they don't have the evidence they claimed and they all lied to us AGAIN

Your assumption is that the raid was to get evidence in a case against Trump.
An alternative is that the raid was to get sensitive documents back to where they belong.

Also something important to remember that when investigations happen, when raids and such happen, they are before a court case has been held and before a judgement has been made.

The evidence has to be strong but not conclusive. Sometimes the raids and investigations don't turn up incriminating evidence.

 

[rjs330]

This. You seem to be suggesting the FBI-DOJ deserve the same level of mistrust as Donald Trump.

Based upon their performance I would say yes. They are not just one person, but a giant powerful organization with the ability to destroy people or favor people and have no accountability to people. It could be argued that they have more power than the president.

And based upon past actions they deserve a high level of distrust.

 

[rjs330]

Main Stream Media is not really a thing.
You have various Media companies, they aren't necessarily tied together.

Typically media outlets have journalism, opinion pieces,
The journalism side is high on news and facts (typically)
The opinion pieces are high on opinions and persuasion and sometimes manipulation, and perhaps lies.

There is a main stream media. It encompasses television, and print.

There is VERY little real journalism done anymore. It's all very biased and the majority is biased in favor of the left.

So if you are looking for factual information you should seek out journalism rather than opinion shows.
And then rather than worry about the media company, you should note down the key points or claims made, and then do your own research. See if other media outlets are saying the same points or claims, see if other media outlets are debunking these claims.

It takes a bit of effort, but it is possible to do

That's the issue you face with the media. They all have the same talking points. And as we find out far too often those turn out to be wrong because they are all biased.

No person or organisation is infallible. Mistakes are sometimes made. It doesn't mean you should write off completely the organisation.

No one's writing them off. You just can't trust them. Be very very careful with what is going on. Just cause the FBI says it does something doesn't make it credible. It used to be that way, but times have changed.

Perhaps you need to learn how to research, how to verify, how to debunk? How to tell journalism from opinion???

Don't talk down to me, I've been doing this for a long time.

Your assumption is that the raid was to get evidence in a case against Trump.
An alternative is that the raid was to get sensitive documents back to where they belong.

Also something important to remember that when investigations happen, when raids and such happen, they are before a court case has been held and before a judgement has been made.

The evidence has to be strong but not conclusive. Sometimes the raids and investigations don't turn up incriminating evidence.

Of course it was to get evidence. The DOJ had to list crimes that they had PC for. They listed crimes they believed he had committed and that allowed them to go after the documents.

I've been in the justice field for 36 years. I know how it works.

 

[wing2000]

Of course it was to get evidence. The DOJ had to list crimes that they had PC for. They listed crimes they believed he had committed and that allowed them to go after the documents.

I've been in the justice field for 36 years. I know how it works.

...and yet, in your judgement, you still think the DOJ's credibility is on par with that of Donald Trump. I don't buy it - at all.

Just last week, Trump offered a different (false) narrative regarding the "raid" almost every day....much of which was loyally repeated here (not by you).

 

[stevil]

There is a main stream media. It encompasses television, and print.

No, lumping them together gives the false narrative that they are all in cohoots together. This is simply not true, some might be sister companies, but others are commercial competitors.
BTW which media outlets would you consider to be NOT part of MSM?

There is VERY little real journalism done anymore. It's all very biased and the majority is biased in favor of the left.

There are lots of journalism done, even Fox news has journalism going on, its dwindling over there, Shep has gone, Wallace has gone. They are favouring opinion shows.
But lots elsewhere.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "favour the left", the "left" is such a broad term. Do you mean that they say bad things about Trump? or favourable things about Democratic Party member, or they say good things about Affordable health care, or that they sometimes have gay presenters, what does "favour the left" mean??

That's the issue you face with the media. They all have the same talking points. And as we find out far too often those turn out to be wrong because they are all biased.

You would expect the different media outlets to have the same talking points.
If a president is under investigation it is BIG news, they all ought to be talking about it.
If a warrant is released and it says stuff, then you'd expect them all to be talking about that stuff.
The very thought that they are all using the same talking points, means that they aren't just randomly making stuff up.

No one's writing them off. You just can't trust them. Be very very careful with what is going on. Just cause the FBI says it does something doesn't make it credible. It used to be that way, but times have changed.

For the most part they seem very sound and credible to me.

Don't talk down to me, I've been doing this for a long time.

I wasn't talking down to you, You said it was hard to find the facts, I was suggesting a way to do so.

Of course it was to get evidence. The DOJ had to list crimes that they had PC for. They listed crimes they believed he had committed and that allowed them to go after the documents.

No, not necessarily.
Of course they can't just barge into someone's place without evidence of wrongdoing, but it has been suggested in at least one media article that the intent may have been just to retrieve the missing documents rather than to gather evidence to incriminate Trump. Those documents are important and weren't in the proper place, no doubt the FBI will be handing them over to the National Archives at some point.

 

[rjs330]

No, lumping them together gives the false narrative that they are all in cohoots together. This is simply not true, some might be sister companies, but others are commercial competitors.
BTW which media outlets would you consider to be NOT part of MSM?

Your argument here is a poor attempt at portraying an argument as a conspiracy theory. Nice try. The media is filled primarily with nothing but leftists who create a narrative the meets their leftist ideology. They all come from journalistic schools who teach this. A conspiracy theory would say they all sit in a dark room and agree on what they are all going to say and then every organization agrees and goes out in solidarity.

What is happening is actually worse than that. They all primarily think alike. It called group think. When they have progressive liberal.ideology they promote the progressive liberal ideology. There are a lot of examples of this. They all say the same thing even using the same words. And the odd thing is that it's all left wing. It's coming out of their beliefs and ideology and not out of a back room. They have been caught in out and out lies and manipulation. It's obvious if you are paying attention. And just cause they all say it doesn't make it true. Newspapers do it, television news stations do it. And there are far more agencies and organizations on the left than in the right.

Mainstream journalism is more propaganda and agenda driven than factual reporting driven. They will give a fact and turn and twist it to and agenda or propegand rather than leave it be.

 

[stevil]

Your argument here is a poor attempt at portraying an argument as a conspiracy theory. Nice try. The media is filled primarily with nothing but leftists who create a narrative the meets their leftist ideology.
They all come from journalistic schools who teach this.

That sounds like an unbelievable conspiracy.
Why aren't right leaning people getting into the media industry?
Do these schools not accept right leaning people? Do they not accept right leaning teachers?
It's all utter nonsense of course, but do go on.

A conspiracy theory would say they all sit in a dark room and agree on what they are all going to say and then every organization agrees and goes out in solidarity.

Nah, your conspiracy implies lots of unbelievable coordination.

What is happening is actually worse than that. They all primarily think alike. It called group think.

I assume people that get into media as a career are people that come from all walks of life, all ideologies (well, except for Armish of course), all political leanings.
What you are saying is unsupported nonsense, total conspiracy stuff, total paranoia.

When they have progressive liberal.ideology they promote the progressive liberal ideology. There are a lot of examples of this. They all say the same thing even using the same words. And the odd thing is that it's all left wing. It's coming out of their beliefs and ideology and not out of a back room. They have been caught in out and out lies and manipulation. It's obvious if you are paying attention. And just cause they all say it doesn't make it true. Newspapers do it, television news stations do it. And there are far more agencies and organizations on the left than in the right.

I am paying attention but I'm not seeing what you are claiming. Your claims above are very vague, you haven't clarified what would be a progressive liberal ideology, you haven't linked to a journalist doing this "promotion" rather than reporting the news.

 

[Pommer]

The media is filled primarily with nothing but leftists who create a narrative the meets their leftist ideology. They all come from journalistic schools who teach this.

Oh, no wonder you espouse the views that you do.
Thank you this has been very informative.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The French have massive protests and even general-strikes and still do okay with being a free-society.

Is it your contention that protests and strikes are inherently uncivil?

 

[rjs330]

, not necessarily.
Of course they can't just barge into someone's place without evidence of wrongdoing, but it has been suggested in at least one media article that the intent may have been just to retrieve the missing documents rather than to gather evidence to incriminate Trump. Those documents are important and weren't in the proper place, no doubt the FBI will be handing them over to the National Archives at some

They believed he was in wrong doing. They provided laws they believed he had broken. That's why you get a search warrant. To gather evidence of the offense you are claiming they did. You just proved my point on journalism. They suggested it was just to retrieve documents? What right side they have to do that? You don't get a warrant to retrieve documents without cause of a crime. If they were just trying to retrieve documents then they just abused the justice system which makes them even more untrustworthy.

The news made a suggestion. A propeganda statement, twisting what the warrant called for to make it appear less ominous.