FBI raiding Mar A Lago

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
9,772
5,459
1,743
Somewhere
Documents produced on a computer cannot be stored on a computer because it may be hacked? In that case I hope the authoring computer is not connected to a network and brag may be the case.

A former president is allowed to walk out with 30+ boxes of documents that are so sensitive to national security that it requires the first FBI raid on a former president in history in order to get them back after they were discovered missing 18 months later? Yes this sounds like a system of document security we should all have great faith in.
Jesus Christ man. Ever heard of TailsOS? It is one of many.

The National Archives have been trying to get the documents back from Trump and his people for 18 months, and they played games about it for about 14 months before giving up some of them. Then they tried to say that was all of them. They suspected there were more missing, but could not do anything without getting a warrant to procure them.

An FBI informant came forward in the last couple of weeks with specific intel on where these missing files were located, and thus prompted the raid. Its pretty simple, no?
 

Jostate

Identifies as a Cowboys fan
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
23,416
15,642
1,743
And what does that say about the GOP if they are polling equal to Ds nationally?

Tells me we are in trouble no matter what.
That would appear to be the case lately.

I used to think the "they're all crooks so I can't stand any of them" was kind of a cop out. Lately that statement is getting harder to dispute.
 
Dec 18, 2019
678
144
93
42
Central Oklahoma
Jesus Christ man. Ever heard of TailsOS? It is one of many.

The National Archives have been trying to get the documents back from Trump and his people for 18 months, and they played games about it for about 14 months before giving up some of them. Then they tried to say that was all of them. They suspected there were more missing, but could not do anything without getting a warrant to procure them.

An FBI informant came forward in the last couple of weeks with specific intel on where these missing files were located, and thus prompted the raid. Its pretty simple, no?
Thanks for making my point. National archives “suspected” some were missing. They didn’t know for sure they were missing? The federal government doesn’t have better accountability over these types of documents than that? How do we know he didn’t make copies and stored in a separate location?

The DOJ isn’t talking. Nobody has seen the search warrants but yet there sure are a lot of “experts” on this board that know exactly what happened and why it happened. Personally I think this document thing is just the shiny distraction object. They were there for some other reason.
 

okstate987

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 17, 2009
9,772
5,459
1,743
Somewhere
Thanks for making my point. National archives “suspected” some were missing. They didn’t know for sure they were missing? The federal government doesn’t have better accountability over these types of documents than that? How do we know he didn’t make copies and stored in a separate location?

The DOJ isn’t talking. Nobody has seen the search warrants but yet there sure are a lot of “experts” on this board that know exactly what happened and why it happened. Personally I think this document thing is just the shiny distraction object. They were there for some other reason.
Yeah, you completely glossed over the part where those suspicions were confirmed by a CI. You can't get a warrant without specific details as @CowboyJD has mentioned before.

So, yet again:
 
Jul 5, 2020
2,165
410
213
59
Broken Arrow
First the DoJ. We are way too early to cast any judgement on how the DoJ would proceed. Let’s see what the end result is. My honest feeling is that there was sensitive info deemed a NatSec risk that trump had. What else was the FBI supposed to do? Just leave it laying at MAL? They asked for a return of all info. He had his chance multiple times. This is on him. According to what I’ve read the FBI showed up in plain clothes w side arms. They were respectful to staff and had attorneys present. I’ve also read where agents are reqWhat would you have done?

Media would be just the same but reversed depending on the MSNBC/CNN team vs the Fox/OAN team.

I exclusively watch ABCWorld News at 5:30 and not much else and find them to be pretty balanced It’s just 30 minutes of straight news w no opinion guests. They’ve been harsh to Biden at times.
I retract my belief that you might use common sense. You’re spinning the response into something that doesn’t even resemble a response to a simple question. And how do you know they’re balanced if you only watch ABC “exclusively”?
 
Dec 9, 2013
2,124
740
743
52
I retract my belief that you might use common sense. You’re spinning the response into something that doesn’t even resemble a response to a simple question. And how do you know they’re balanced if you only watch ABC “exclusively”?
In 2016 the Obama DoJ had open investigations on the 2 presidential candidates. 11 days ahead of the election the Dir of the FBI goes in front of a camera and announces info damaging to Clinton w the full knowledge that the FBI was also investigating Trump yet he remained silent. There’s a pretty good chance this tipped the election to Trump. Yet you pretend that the DoJ has always been out for Trump or the GOP.

You have no evidence that the DoJ is unfairly targeting Trump. You have no evidence the FBI is not investigating Hunter.

I can’t help it if you ask a question and I don’t answer in the silo you want. If the families were reversed MSNBC would be downplaying Biden’s role and make him the victim. Fox would go nonstop piling on the Bidens.

I just don’t see the rush to say “we finally got him” or “they’re always out to get him”. This was a no win situation for the DoJ bc I don’t believe this leads to a prosecution and people like you and the other residents of MAGAstan will continue to believe in your dictator no matter what he does. Let’s just see how this unfolds.
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
33,249
14,719
1,743
Cozy's Bar
In 2016 the Obama DoJ had open investigations on the 2 presidential candidates. 11 days ahead of the election the Dir of the FBI goes in front of a camera and announces info damaging to Clinton w the full knowledge that the FBI was also investigating Trump yet he remained silent. There’s a pretty good chance this tipped the election to Trump. Yet you pretend that the DoJ has always been out for Trump or the GOP.

You have no evidence that the DoJ is unfairly targeting Trump. You have no evidence the FBI is not investigating Hunter.

I can’t help it if you ask a question and I don’t answer in the silo you want. If the families were reversed MSNBC would be downplaying Biden’s role and make him the victim. Fox would go nonstop piling on the Bidens.

I just don’t see the rush to say “we finally got him” or “they’re always out to get him”. This was a no win situation for the DoJ bc I don’t believe this leads to a prosecution and people like you and the other residents of MAGAstan will continue to believe in your dictator no matter what he does. Let’s just see how this unfolds.
Hilary already had her ass kicked because she was Hillary. This is a poor excuse
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,677
33,483
1,743
oklahoma city
I don’t disagree with that.

I just find the media giving Biden high-fives of this recent bill a little humorous. I HATE tax increases, but I was for the elimination of the carried interest loophole …and posted about it in the Biden Administration thread. But…he couldn’t even get that easy layup and that got dropped from the bill.
Easy layup?

That is one of the dumber things I've ever seen written here and just shows that it really wouldn't matter what Biden does because your bias makes you hold him to an impossible standard while you always gave Trump a huge pass for actual blunders. Decades of presidents have claimed that they would get rid of carried interest and none have. At this point in our corporate-run government, it is a behind-the-back shot from the top row of the arena to the far-end basket.

Screen Shot 2022-08-11 at 7.54.07 AM.png
Screen Shot 2022-08-11 at 7.53.37 AM.png
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,677
33,483
1,743
oklahoma city
Which gets to an earlier comment I made that I stand by. This is nothing more than political tit for tat collectively orchestrated by Clinton, Garland, and Biden. The former two for the screwing they already received, and the latter as a preemptive strike for the pending screwing of his son, Little Enos Burdette.
And, since there is ABSOLUTELY no way to know that this is fact, I stand by my statement that these are the words of a partisan hack who cares more about party than country.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,677
33,483
1,743
oklahoma city
It has nothing to do with Republican / Democrat. There have been Republican presidents over the past 50 years that have done far worse morally & legally than Trump and they got a pass just like the Bidens.

The problem for Trump is that he made a lot of enemies and didn’t “play the game”, yet expects to be treated the same as the people that did play the game. That’s just not realistic.
Huh?

Who did worse than attempting to stay in power by bullying state electors, creating a riot at the capitol, and dividing the country with clear lies that his supporters use to despise anything the government does whether it is right or wrong?
 

cableok

Territorial Marshal
Mar 11, 2006
5,116
2,619
1,743
Easy layup?

That is one of the dumber things I've ever seen written here and just shows that it really wouldn't matter what Biden does because your bias makes you hold him to an impossible standard while you always gave Trump a huge pass for actual blunders. Decades of presidents have claimed that they would get rid of carried interest and none have. At this point in our corporate-run government, it is a behind-the-back shot from the top row of the arena to the far-end basket.

View attachment 96781 View attachment 96783
You really cannot be that dense, can you?
Also think about how much was estimated as revenue for carried interest and ...after it was stricken from the bill ---- how much spending was deleted from the bill?
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,677
33,483
1,743
oklahoma city
You really cannot be that dense, can you?
Also think about how much was estimated as revenue for carried interest and ...after it was stricken from the bill ---- how much spending was deleted from the bill?
Congrats. You usually attempt a few posts of defending your absurd statements with more absurd statements before going to insults. I appreciate you just skipping all that and going straight to insults. Which I take as "Yea, I really can't argue that but my arrogance stops me from EVER admitting I had a bad take so I'll just insult you."

The "spending" isn't relevant to your post or my point. Nope, I'm not going to go down a side tangent with you because you want to divert from your stupid statement.

I think it was one of the dumbest things written and gave reasons why. You obviously think Biden should have done what your boy Trump couldn't so you are insulting me. We can leave it at that and other people reading can decide.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,677
33,483
1,743
oklahoma city
We'll just see how your tune changes in January 2023, then again in January 2025. That I will pay money to watch. :popcorn:
My tune is that I am waiting to see what evidence they have and what happens with it. I'm not claiming he did or didn't do anything (other than try to stay in power after losing which is fact at this point).
Sure, my "tune" will change based on what comes out. I don't know why you would find that exciting, it is just called how rational people deal with issues.
Maybe instead of offering to pay money to see it, you should try rationality yourself some time.
 
Jul 5, 2020
2,165
410
213
59
Broken Arrow
My tune is that I am waiting to see what evidence they have and what happens with it. I'm not claiming he did or didn't do anything (other than try to stay in power after losing which is fact at this point).
Sure, my "tune" will change based on what comes out. I don't know why you would find that exciting, it is just called how rational people deal with issues.
Maybe instead of offering to pay money to see it, you should try rationality yourself some time.
I'd like for you to share with me the location within my earlier comment where I stated the "political tit for tat" was fact. It's pretty obvious we all have to wait to see what happens, at least formally, but based on the ebb and flow of politics the last 20 years, I'd say that's a pretty accurate description. And why? Because when the R's re-take the majority and WH, the tit for tat will swing in the other direction. Now, tell me where I'm wrong in that belief.