Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage

From our contributors:

Display Order:

Russian children as young as 7 are getting military training
Military by Curt_Anderson     September 24, 2023 5:06 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (2 comments) [36 views]

Examples of how different the Democrats are from the Republicans
Politics by Ponderer     September 21, 2023 1:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (57 comments) [535 views]

FDR had the GOP pegged
History by Curt_Anderson     September 25, 2023 9:47 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [13 views]

NYT: Unfounded Claim That DeSantis Abused Guantánamo Detainees
Politics by Curt_Anderson     September 24, 2023 12:16 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (8 comments) [94 views]

Matt Gaetz v. the Swamp...Must Watch Video
Politics by HatetheSwamp     September 25, 2023 8:02 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [10 views]

Trump spanks Biden 51-42 in head-to-head matchup: POLL
Politics by HatetheSwamp     September 24, 2023 10:56 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments) [75 views]

Is Trump a dead man walking? Why Biden is likely to outlive Trump.
Health by Curt_Anderson     September 17, 2023 3:00 pm (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: oldedude (51 comments) [483 views]

What is the far left equivalent of a "MAGA Hatted Moron"?
Advice by Ponderer     September 20, 2023 10:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (45 comments) [347 views]

We know the desired endgame in Ukraine. It's too risky for Biden to share the particulars with Republicans.
Military by Curt_Anderson     September 22, 2023 11:38 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (38 comments) [390 views]

Republican death wish
Politics by islander     September 22, 2023 6:29 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (20 comments) [152 views]

President selectors, pages, etc.
Get off Trump's back! Don't pretend you never lost some important document.
By Curt_Anderson
June 3, 2023 6:34 pm
Category: President

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

Who among us hasn't misplaced an item? I am sure we all lost an article of clothing or an umbrella. Hasn't everybody had the experience of lending a book, a tool or a kitchen item and forgotten who borrowed it?

When a person has multiple homes--especially homes that are also hotels, condominiums and golf clubs with people going in and out, it's understandable that a classified document or two could get lost in the shuffle.

Exclusive: Trump attorneys haven't found classified document former president referred to on tape following subpoena
(CNN) — Attorneys for Donald Trump turned over material in mid-March in response to a federal subpoena related to a classified US military document described by the former president on tape in 2021 but were unable to find the document itself, two sources tell CNN.

Prosecutors issued the subpoena shortly after asking a Trump aide before a federal grand jury about the audio recording of a July 2021 meeting at Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey. On the recording, Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran.

Cited and related links:

  1. cnn.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Get off Trump's back! Don't pretend you never lost some important document.":

  1. by oldedude on June 3, 2023 8:02 pm
    As I have continually said. Classified is classified. You're accountable for it regardless of the circumstances.

    My only question is about the classification with the trumpster (meaning IS IT REALLY CLASSIFIED, or is it fictitious). I know there are different things for Presidents, but I don't know what those are. Ergo, charge for every illegal act prescribed by law. Nothing more or less.

    For pedojoe. Charge for every illegal act prescribed by law. Nothing more or less. Apparently he isn't covered by being a "president" at the time the classified was stolen.

    IF obomber kept some classified, then he deserves the same. If not, leave him the fuk alone.

    IF they are NOT charged, then you'd better pull out those in the military that did less. The handling of classified is built so there is little if any variance in what can be done to the offender. I fully support that. IN ALL CASES.

  2. by Ponderer on June 3, 2023 8:11 pm

    I'm betting that Trump was lying about that supposed document entirely. It never existed. He was just trying to look like a big man to the book interviewer.

    He has been known to tell a tall tale or two in his time ya know.

    Ari Melber interviewed one of Trump's attorneys the other day who was suggesting that the document didn't even exist. Ari said, "So what you're saying is that your best defense is that your client was lying?"

    The guy essentially agreed with that statement.


    What the tape did do though was to prove that Trump actually did know about how he was supposed to handle such documents. He knew he wasn't supposed to show them to anybody. But evidence is surfacing that he did show such documents to people. He's dead meat.


  3. by Curt_Anderson on June 3, 2023 9:39 pm
    Ponderer,
    I suspect that document DID exist. The reason I think so is because the National Archives (therefore the DOJ and Jack Smith) would know if that document is missing (or in librarian parlance: overdue).

  4. by HatetheSwamp on June 4, 2023 3:09 am

    Gang,

    OD and pb have always suggested that Trump's vulnerable here. The only thing that we ever did is attack the Banana Republic way in which the FBI carried out it's search warrant.

    Remember, though, Hillary's thousands of classified emails [see Newsweek and FBI links] and all of Joe's stolen documents. Please don't let your TDS carry you away. You've been disappointed many times over.

    If Trump's charged, this will be a bigger political win for him than the Alvin Bragg fiasco was.
    usnews.com
    fbi.gov

  5. by oldedude on June 4, 2023 5:19 am
    IF there is actually EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW, I think we're both good.

    To the sheeple, that idea only exists if they are conservatives. If they're other sheep, they have every lie, reason, and justification why they "shouldn't" be equal under the law and spew utter hatred on anyone that actually believes in equal justice.

    This is just one of the reasons why I laugh when the sheep say they follow the rule of law and the Constitution. This, among other things, proves they hate the necessity of a constitution of equal justice under the law.

  6. by HatetheSwamp on June 4, 2023 5:21 am

    OD,

    It's easy as long as you can laugh at them.

  7. by Ponderer on June 4, 2023 7:24 am

    Curt, you could well be right. But I don't think that we've heard anything yet from the Archive about that particular document's existence.


    Hate, olde dude... There was nothing wrong with anything about the FBI raid or how they went about any of it. You're both just wrong. Deluded in fact. Overwhelmingly so. Sorry.


  8. by oldedude on June 4, 2023 7:31 am
    So far, you're correct. But we haven't started motions yet. And I don't know what those will bring since I've only been informed by bias media (on both sides).

  9. by HatetheSwamp on June 4, 2023 2:02 pm

    "Hate, olde dude... There was nothing wrong with anything about the FBI raid or how they went about any of it. You're both just wrong. Deluded in fact. Overwhelmingly so. Sorry." -po

    Nothing wrong,...if you want to live in a Big Brother State.

    If Trump's elected in 024 and he has his law enforcement thugs do that to the Doddering Old Fool, you'll $#!t an effin brick. If you're honest, you know that.

  10. by oldedude on June 4, 2023 2:34 pm
    That's why I'm waiting for motions hearings. It's going to bring all of that out in public. Some of them will be BS.

    Defense will motion to vacate. Meaning drop the charges and everyone goes home. I mean you have to try, right? But they're going to bring up the dirt on this to discredit prosecution.

    On a more serious note, the Warrant will be questioned at nauseum. Who, What, When, Why, What's the timeframe. Is the subpoena to write the warrant valid, were there LIES in that subpoena (already done to trumpster a few times). If there were, everything gets thrown out since there was no basis to make the search. THAT would be very embarrassing for the bureau, and congress would be on the people who wrote it and ensured heads would roll. Unfortunately, if that were to happen, trumpster would be a shoe-in.

  11. by Ponderer on June 4, 2023 2:48 pm

    "So far, you're correct. But we haven't started motions yet.",/b> -olde dude

    Because you've got nothing to start with.

    You know generally, the way it goes is that there's a crime committed and then there's an investigation and trial. Generally, you don't start with an investigation and then start looking for a crime to try. Just, you know... generally.


    "On a more serious note, the Warrant will be questioned at nauseum. Who, What, When, Why, What's the timeframe." -olde dude

    Care to wager on that? "Cuz I bet it won't be. They made sure that they had every "t" crossed and every "i" dotted. There won't be anything wrong found. You watch.


    "were there LIES in that subpoena (already done to trumpster a few times)" -olde dude

    Wrong. You are babbling nonsense of an extremely ludicrous variety. What lies in what subpoena.


  12. by oldedude on June 4, 2023 7:10 pm
    Wrong. You are babbling nonsense of an extremely ludicrous variety. What lies in what subpoena.

    OMFG... Really? you forgot already? You need to get off the crack.

    I was referencing the FBI/DOJ lying to the FISA court to obtain illegal warrants. Knowing the dossier was a lie and using that to secure at least 2 warrants for a wiretap and then renewing that wire tap with illegal "evidence." This means it is illegal to use in subpoenas, warrants, or charges against any plaintiff.

    Inspector General report on FBI's FISA abuse tells us one thing: We need radical reform.The IG report concluded FBI officials made 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in its submissions to the FISA court to secure warrants to target former Trump advisor Carter Page: “FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are ‘scrupulously accurate.’ We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed.”

    FBI Apologizes To Court For Mishandling Surveillance Of Trump Campaign Adviser
    The FBI apologized to the secret court that handles national security investigations for the way it conducted surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser during the 2016 election, according to a court filing made public on Saturday.

    FBI Director Christopher Wray outlined steps the bureau is taking to ensure it doesn't make the same mistakes again. He wrote in the filing to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the FBI will tighten procedures governing wiretapping applications to the court, which oversees intelligence gathering under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

    The FBI response comes after a report last month from the Justice Department inspector general that revealed serious issues with the bureau's applications to the court to wiretap former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The FBI suspected Page had possible ties to Russia.
    usatoday.com
    npr.org

  13. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 4:51 am
    You know generally, the way it goes is that there's a crime committed and then there's an investigation and trial. Generally, you don't start with an investigation and then start looking for a crime to try. Just, you know... generally

    But not in the case of Russian collusion. That's what the post above is all about. They CREATED a case with false pretenses. Used the false pretenses as "facts" to get warrants and subpoenas ILLEGALLY. That's the basis of the "Russian collusion" story.

  14. by Ponderer on June 5, 2023 7:20 am

    You are blowing that stuff out of all sane proportion, od. You're posting rather old crap that has already been deemed by the courts to have no bearing on the substance of the warrant or the search.

    No investigation or arrest is ever flawless. But these mole hills of oversight that bring no evidence whatsoever of any intentional malice or criminal activity to the table have no substance at all that would equate them to mountains, or change the facts and evidence of the case and Trump's crimes.

    That's why this nonsense hasn't made any difference in the investigations in the last three years since your links were published, od.

    But I get why you're still defending him. Old habits die hard, eh?




  15. by Ponderer on June 5, 2023 7:24 am

    "They CREATED a case with false pretenses. Used the false pretenses as "facts" to get warrants and subpoenas ILLEGALLY. That's the basis of the "Russian collusion" story." -olde dude

    Your propagandist reading of that is so ridiculously outlandish and wrong that it's not even worth addressing.

    My god. The mountain ranges you people can make out of the tiniest mole hill could totally cover the entire land mass of a large planet if they were real.



  16. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 1:53 pm
    Ask the FBI. The Durham report there was NO (meaning ZERO) facts in the dossier they used in the multiple subpoenas and warrants they used to charge trumpster.

    Simple question: Why didn't they use the dossier in ANY of thehearings and impeachments against trumpster? Doesn't that sound suspicious to you? IF the dossier had ANY credibility at all, they would have used that information to show how federal charges should be charged by DOJ. And yet..... they didn't. They didn't use the easiest tool in their box. The nuclear weapon (or dragon if you're a GOT fan) that could have put trumpster in federal prison for decades, ruined him and his entire family. All of his minions. His secretary and anyone else working for him.

    Why didn't they use it when they had the chance? Maybe because DOJ told them not to? The "evidence" was illegally obtained? That's not me. That's the leftist, marxist, sheep on your side that wanted him buried (literally). You really need to ask more questions.

  17. by Curt_Anderson on June 5, 2023 3:33 pm
    No, OD, it does not sound suspicious. Have you not heard the axiom “if you see something say something”? When the “something” seems credible law enforcement follows up. The dossier contained credible allegations that the FBI followed up on to confirm or dismiss. Among other people, the dossier implicated Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. That led to charges, and of course, both Stone and Manafort were pardoned by Trump.

    Lawfare reported "Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials."
    lawfareblog.com

  18. by Curt_Anderson on June 5, 2023 3:33 pm
    No, OD, it does not sound suspicious. Have you not heard the axiom “if you see something say something”? When the “something” seems credible law enforcement follows up. The dossier contained credible allegations that the FBI followed up on to confirm or dismiss. Among other people, the dossier implicated Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. That led to charges, and of course, both Stone and Manafort were pardoned by Trump.

    Lawfare reported "Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials."
    lawfareblog.com

  19. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 4:36 pm
    Unfortunately, the Durham report said they did not have any grounds whatsoever to pursue a case against trumpster. That's what we've been saying all along.

    A cursory examination of the Steele Dossier should have convinced the CIA or the FBI that it was fake news. Any residual doubt would have vanished after learning that its author, Christopher Steele, was an opposition researcher paid by the Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump. That our most sophisticated government officials acted as if the Dossier were legitimate leads to only one conclusion. They were a knowing and willing part of the Democratic and media smear of a presidential contender, and then president, that paralyzed U.S. politics for three years.
    We now know that the Steele Dossier is bogus. Inspector General Michael Horowitz drove the final stake through its heart. He found that the Dossier was compiled from hearsay and third-hand gossip from two low-level sources and that they denied the testimony attributed to them. The only “verified” information that Horowitz found was available from public sources.

    CNN even says you're wrong
    Shortly before the 2016 election, the FBI offered retired British spy Christopher Steele “up to $1 million” to prove the explosive allegations in his dossier about Donald Trump, a senior FBI analyst testified Tuesday.

    The cash offer was made during an overseas October 2016 meeting between Steele and several top FBI officials who were trying to corroborate Steele’s claims that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to win the election.

    FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten testified that Steele never got the money because he could not “prove the allegations.”

    Auten also said Steele refused to provide the names of any of his sources during that meeting, and that Steele didn’t give the FBI anything during that meeting that corroborated the claims in his explosive dossier.


    Hillary Clinton and Democrats settle Steele dossier electoral case for $113,000
    Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier.

    That is according to documents sent on Tuesday to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, which had filed an administrative complaint in 2018 accusing the Democrats of misreporting payments made to a law firm during the 2016 campaign to obscure the spending.

    The Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie, which then hired Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm, to conduct opposition research on Republican candidate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. But on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.


    Trump-Russia Steele dossier analyst charged with lying to FBIA Russian analyst who worked on a dossier that made unsubstantiated claims linking Donald Trump to the Kremlin has been arrested in the US.

    The Department of Justice charged Igor Danchenko, 43, with lying to the FBI.

    He was detained as part of an inquiry into the origins of baseless claims that Mr Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.

    The so-called Steele Dossier was used by the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants on a top Trump aide.

    The document was held up by Democrats to paint Mr Trump as a Russian puppet, a narrative amplified in a feedback loop by most US media for much of the president's four years in office.

    A lawyer for the Russian analyst did not immediately respond to requests for comment, Reuters news agency reports.

    Mr Danchenko worked with ex-British spy Christopher Steele on the dossier.

    Published by Buzzfeed 10 days before Mr Trump took office, the Steele Dossier made a number of explosive claims linking Mr Trump to the Kremlin - including that Russia had compromising material on the Republican candidate. Mr Trump always dismissed the allegations as a hoax.

    Mr Steele was hired to conduct the research through a law firm on behalf of Mr Trump's political opponents, including the campaign of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate in the 2016 election.
    hoover.org
    cnn.com
    theguardian.com
    bbc.com

  20. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 4:45 pm
    So. Long story short. This is the shorthand of the prior post.

    1. That our most sophisticated government officials acted as if the Dossier were legitimate leads to only one conclusion. They were a knowing and willing part of the Democratic and media smear of a presidential contender, and then president, that paralyzed U.S. politics for three years.

    2. The FBI was going to pay steele $1mil for information that would support the dossier. Steele never got paid... nor did he produce any information.

    3. Hill and the dims agreed to settle the election fraud accusation with the FCC instead of going through an investigation. Ergo, they're pleading guilty.

    4. An FBI analyst was arrested for linking the dossier. HE LIED. "A Russian analyst who worked on a dossier that made unsubstantiated claims linking Donald Trump to the Kremlin has been arrested in the US."

  21. by Curt_Anderson on June 5, 2023 5:41 pm
    Durham debunks a prolific Trump lie
    Durham appeared to break new ground on the well-trodden topic of the dossier, with his revelation about the $1 million offer to Steele. CNN previously reported that the FBI reimbursed some expenses for Steele, who had been an FBI informant.

    But the special counsel also debunked a prolific Trump lie about the Steele dossier -- that it was the reason why the FBI started investigating his campaign in 2016 for potentially conspiring with Russian agents.

    This false claim has been refuted dozens of times over the years, in official Justice Department documentation, bipartisan reports from Congress, and numerous court filings. It was refuted again Tuesday, when Durham asked Auten, the FBI official, to tell jurors the reason why the Trump-Russia investigation was opened in late July 2016.

    Auten confirmed what has been known for many years: the probe was launched after the US government got intelligence from a friendly country that a Trump campaign aide had bragged to one of its diplomats that the Russians had offered to help Trump beat Hillary Clinton.
    cnn.com

  22. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 6:33 pm
    Muller was a complete imbecile. Or he was lying if you actually watched the testimony. He had ZERO answers, and had to look everything up. I don't mind at all that people have notes, they should have them. But he didn't know enough about his report (or he was lying).

    Muller said cliton wasn't in on this at all, yet she paid a hundred+ grand to plead guilty to illegal use on money in a campaign. How do you explain that?

    You wanted to know what Durham report said? Pay attention. Your cites are not worth the time it took you to type them. You did cite your rag. This information was 2018. Meaning everything I have is post your time, and has been answered by the media, and many of them have apologized for the big lie. Please update yourself. Even though I know you are hating to do that because it shows you side was in on the corruption of the US government and it's legal and political system. The very system you "claim" to support.

    Buy a clue.

  23. by Curt_Anderson on June 5, 2023 7:38 pm

    Muller said cliton wasn't in on this at all, yet she paid a hundred+ grand to plead guilty to illegal use on money in a campaign. How do you explain that? --OD

    Very easily. For starters, you have your facts wrong. The FEC fine was over a labeling issue. That's a technical issue. It wasn't over the veracity of the Steele dossier. Also Hillary was only fined $8,000.

    (CBS)The Federal Election Commission has fined Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign $8,000 and the Democratic National Committee $105,000 for obscuring their funding of the "Steele dossier," a 2016 opposition research report that sought to highlight alleged links between Donald Trump and Russia.

    The bipartisan election commission also dismissed a complaint against Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier that caused a firestorm of allegations and investigations that shook the early months of Trump's presidency.

    The campaign mislabeled Steele's work as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" in campaign filings, the FEC concluded.


    OD, I cannot shake the feeling that you didn't read or even look at the Durham's final report. Durham's final report restated what he said in 2018. Namely that the Steele Dossier did not initiate the FBI's investigation.

    It was George Papadopoulos' bragging to Australian diplomats that Russia was providing the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary that sparked Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI opened their investigation in July of 2016 based on tips from those diplomats. The Durham report states that the dossier did not reach those investigators until mid-September of 2016.

    (From Durham's final report)
    3. The opening of Crossfire Hurricane
    The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane as a full counterintelligence investigation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. " The starting point for the Office's inquiry was to examine what information was known or available to the FBI about any such ties as of July 31, 2016, prior to opening Crossfire Hurricane. (Page 51)

    Papadopoulos was, unsurprisingly, confident that Mr[.] Trump could win the election. He commented that the Clintons had "a lot of baggage" and suggested the Trump team had plenty of material to use in its campaign. He also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs[.] Clinton
    (and President Obama). (Page 52)

    As set forth in Sections IV.D. l .b.ii and iii and in brief below, the Steele Reports were first provided to the FBI in early July 2016 but, for unexplained reasons, only made their way to the Crossfire Hurricane investigators in mid-September. (page 10)

    cbsnews.com
    justice.gov

  24. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 8:46 pm
    Sorry. your TDS is really horrible right now. Demetia?

    This was all disproven in the later stages of the report. You might want to actually post the final responses. You're nothing butt a sham if you continue this. and laughable.

  25. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 8:51 pm
    You're using the "steele" ""report"" not the judgements on the steele report. (bullshit) Do you know the difference? Are you that bloody blind? Again. I am questioning your integrity, which I've done for quite a while.

    The dims got caught. You're worse than a school girl with chocolate all over her face saying she didn't eat any. Had you been a real parent, you'd see that.

  26. by Curt_Anderson on June 5, 2023 9:07 pm
    This was all disproven in the later stages of the report. ---OD

    Ok, prove it. I gave you the link to the Durham report. Quote the relevant passages and supply the page number(s). I say this knowing you can't and won't.

    There are two possibilities here.
    1. Durham is a total incompetent who disproved (thus contradicted himself) the information I cited from his final report.
    2. More likely, you are attempting sell us some baloney that Durham disproved his own report within the later stages of his report.

  27. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 9:12 pm
    prove it.

  28. by Curt_Anderson on June 5, 2023 9:21 pm
    I don't have to. You proved it for me. Just as I said, you are not able to cite anything in "later stages of the report" that disproves what I quoted from Durham's report.

  29. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 9:22 pm
    That's a lie. the Durham report rescinded everything your report said.

  30. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 9:23 pm
    are you drunk? or stoned?

  31. by Curt_Anderson on June 5, 2023 9:29 pm
    "That's a lie. the Durham report rescinded everything your report said."

    That's not MY report. I quoted from John Durham's report.

  32. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 9:30 pm
    You need to actually read the dunham report.
    It spells out the lying that was going on. It tells you how much YOUR government was assisting ILLEGAL ACTIVY of the Bureau and DOJ.

    You can use 1700 law for this, but it doesn't help... Please use citations that are 2019 or later. Otherwise you're full of shit.

  33. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 9:36 pm
    Sorry, You need to actually quote the line of it. You're caught and don't know how to exit.

  34. by Curt_Anderson on June 5, 2023 9:40 pm
    "You need to actually read the dunham report." --OD

    It's not Dunham, it's the Durham report. I not only read it, I quoted from it, and it's less than a month old. As for all that supposed "ILLEGAL ACTIVY of the Bureau and DOJ" you claim, after three and half years of investigation and prosecutions, Durham had secured only one guilty plea and a probation sentence for a charge unrelated to the origins of the Russia investigation, and two unsuccessful trial prosecutions.

  35. by oldedude on June 5, 2023 9:49 pm
    Durham's final report restated what he said in 2018. Namely that the Steele Dossier did not initiate the FBI's investigation

    My FACTS is that they used it to collect "evidence" using wrongful evidence to support their claim. THAT is the illegal use of evidence.

    Since you're a lawyer in good standing, you should know and understand that obtaining wrongful evidence is ILLEGAL.

  36. by Curt_Anderson on June 5, 2023 10:06 pm
    Of course your "facts" are completely unsupported. I not only supplied the links, I gave you the page numbers of the quoted sections from the Durham report.

    I am not a lawyer, but John Durham is. Why couldn't he in three and half years get a single conviction of ANYBODY for using "wrongful evidence"?

  37. by oldedude on June 6, 2023 5:25 am
    I am not a lawyer, but John Durham is. Why couldn't he in three and half years get a single conviction of ANYBODY for using "wrongful evidence"?

    Because he wasn't given arrest powers in his charter (for the fifth? time I've said that).

    The other thing you don't understand. IF something is "FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE" the whole of the evidence is thrown out if the evidence relates to it.

    You are worried about precursors of the crime. OK. I'll give you the extremely weak thoughts of third parties.

    LEAD- Permission to use a metaphor?

    Curt- I want to destroy you because you're a dikead (no other reason). I heard you donate your time at a local group that helps underprivileged kids. Someone else in ashland doesn't like you working with the "little brown people" which are few and far between in racist Oregon. They build a case you are a pedophile (which isn't the case). They add some of the things you've done as a good citizen but fabricate the pedophilia case. Racist investigators support the case and they solely use the report of the other person to build their case. They use this case to ruin your livelihood since your company doesn't want the liability of hiring a known pedophile. No one else will hire you for the same reason. Regardless that the claim is outrageous in your case, it ruins you. You're never charged, but the information is out there, and no reasonable company will hire you for the rest of your life.

    Does this sound like a justified use of the law?
    I know you're going to argue that it's not fair because you're not a pedo. NOT THE POINT. Neither is the Steele dossier.
    kobi5.com

  38. by oldedude on June 6, 2023 5:30 am
    (CBS)The Federal Election Commission has fined Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign $8,000 and the Democratic National Committee $105,000 for obscuring their funding of the "Steele dossier," a 2016 opposition research report that sought to highlight alleged links between Donald Trump and Russia.

    The bipartisan election commission also dismissed a complaint against Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier that caused a firestorm of allegations and investigations that shook the early months of Trump's presidency.

    The campaign mislabeled Steele's work as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" in campaign filings, the FEC concluded.


    Again, and is usual for you sheeple an libbings. You refuse to look at the entire post, and pick out an edit the parts you want. Do you realize that very few issues with the FCC actually get fined? This is extremely rare. Oh. I guess not. You're an "artist" aren't you.

  39. by HatetheSwamp on June 6, 2023 6:02 am

    Thanks, OD, for asking for permission to use a metaphor. It brings back memories.


    THE FIVE is still the top rated show on cable even though its ratings are down as a result of the Tucker related boycott. I hardly ever watched even a minute of Tucker but I was tiring of the Fox schtick anyway. So, I'm a gonner. Cable TV is dying. I'm joining the Millennials, getting my news and commentary from podcasts, mostly.

    But, I do miss Dana and Greg and Harold.

  40. by Curt_Anderson on June 6, 2023 12:00 pm
    I am not a lawyer, but John Durham is. Why couldn't he in three and half years get a single conviction of ANYBODY for using "wrongful evidence"? --Curt

    Because he wasn't given arrest powers in his charter (for the fifth? time I've said that). --OD

    Durham didn't need arrest powers. He just needed to make the case to indict, prosecute and convict. Durham could not and did not. That should tell you something.


  41. by oldedude on June 6, 2023 9:41 pm
    Yes he does. That is part of the legal system. You're just being stupid now.

  42. by oldedude on June 6, 2023 9:41 pm
    Yes he does. That is part of the legal system. You're just being stupid now.

  43. by Curt_Anderson on June 6, 2023 10:57 pm
    "Yes he does [need arrest powers] That is part of the legal system. You're just being stupid now." --OD

    You're being stubborn and ridiculous. After three-and-a-half-years, Durham indicted three men. One was an FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering an email that was included in a June 2017 application for a surveillance warrant on a former Trump campaign aide; he was sentenced to probation. The other two men were tried and acquitted.

    The men he prosecuted were arrested, arraigned and indicted. Durham didn't arrest them personally, but he caused them to be arrested.

    The proof is in the pudding. Durham has practically nothing to show for his three and half years and more than $6.5 million cost of his investigation.


    I predicted Durham's investigation would be a flop.

    I further predict that Jack Smith, who seems competent and deadly serious, will indict and convict Trump.

  44. by oldedude on June 7, 2023 4:58 am
    This is an indictment of an AGENCY. There is enough there to warrant arrests. The issue is the DOJ/FBI is the people that would call for the arrests, are the people being arrested. Do you really think that is going to happen? Again, that is at best, EXTREMELY naive. And at worst, you're supporting the very essence of your jackbooted ideas of third world shthole politics.

    I really wonder what would happen if you would read this through the lens of actual justice. Not though your little NAZI ideas of strict adherence to your "leader." The worst part is that many drink the same koolaid as you. You "say" you believe in the constitution, yet you support the worst possible violations of the constitution.

    You're stupid and naive.

  45. by oldedude on June 7, 2023 5:06 am
    If smith actually runs a LEGAL trial, and convicts, fine. I don't have a problem with that. If you approve of him, I'm doubtful that any sort of legal trial would be done.

    Oh, Just remember. NOTHING from the dossier can be used against trump. Period. Fukking end of story. Even if there are parts that may be true, they can't be used because they were wrapped up in an illegally obtained document. They have to restart the entire process. That is the US LEGAL SYSTEM. Nothing you can whine about can change that. No first year law student would even try to use ANY of that wrongful evidence to convict a dog catcher. So good luck.

    If you actually had an idea about how law works, it would help.

  46. by HatetheSwamp on June 7, 2023 5:37 am

    The problem with a trial is that it'll be in DC. With that jury, the chance that Trump will get a fair trial is exactly the same as it was in the old Dems-dominated south for an innocent black man to be found not guilty of raping a white woman.

  47. by Curt_Anderson on June 7, 2023 11:04 am
    "The problem with a trial is that it'll be in DC. With that jury, the chance that Trump will get a fair trial is exactly the same as it was in the old Dems-dominated south for an innocent black man to be found not guilty of raping a white woman." ---HtS

    Great news for you! A grand jury was impaneled way down south in Florida, a Republican state.

    "An associate for former President Trump testified Wednesday before a federal grand jury in Florida hearing evidence in the case of Trump’s handling of classified materials." ---The Hill
    thehill.com

  48. by HatetheSwamp on June 7, 2023 1:07 pm

    So one person spoke before a grand jury. Trump’s guilty, eh?

    Curt. I support Ron DeSantis for President. The last thing I want is for Trump to be treated in a way that makes him appear to be a sympathetic figure. I'm guessing that you want Trump nominated by the GOPs. Eh?

Go To Top

Comment on: "Get off Trump's back! Don't pretend you never lost some important document."

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page