It triggered Sidney, who made all the improper assumptions that you recognise were made, and I responded to his post and his misconceptions. My criticisms were of his opinion that they had been taken deliberately to stop Trump from travelling, as if due process had taken place, rather than the situation you describe. You then got triggered, by me replying to a poster on here. Very sad. But then, you think the EU were legally permitted to interfere with UK democracy!! So what is you opinion worth? PS If you hadn't tried to have a dig at me, I probably would have liked this post, which otherwise was informative and fair.
And not a nothing burger. If the raid had allowed Trump's representatives oversight of your "scoop up", things that shouldn't have been taken wouldn't need returning. Garland's description of what a warrant should be is not reflected in the fall out. It is clear it was a fishing expedition. The law exists to prevent such over reach. On the grounds of this search (every presidential document from Trump's term), every former President should have been raided for no reason, and on the confidentiality front, a plethora of anti Trump members of the DOJ and FBI, and specifically Hilary Clinton, should be fully investigated and considered for prosecution. In six years they never found anything on Trump, and he has been the subject of the most aggressive and partisan investigation and prosecution. That is the primary message from the raid taking place. There is enough on Biden and Clinton in the public domain to justify serious investigation just from their own communications and admissions. You guys don't see what you don't want to see, and expect others to accept the unsubstantiated rubbish you have swallowed yourselves. Tell me I am wrong.
For the sake of clarity, which may well lead to a discourse attempting to extrapolate from one position to something so extreme it is, effectively, something else. @UEA_Hornet & others (myself included) never stated they agreed the EU were legally permitted to interfere in UK democracy. The position was that in the build up to the 2016 referendum the EU's contribution to the debate could never be said to have been an attempt at 'illegal interference'. A view that seems to have been held even by Farage and the rabid dogs of the ERG who would, most certainly, have trumpeted this 'illegality' with all the gusto they could have mustered. [Stands by to be accused of, despite numerous declamations specifically to the contrary: only voting remain for reasons of personal greed; to be, effectively, a racist for pointing out the discrete origin of the term '3rd World'; and of being a middle-class leftie/right-wing/neo-fascist whatever for daring to express that the Tory party in its current manifestation is dedicated only to their own personal greed and to the benefit of their (often dodgy) expert 'tax-avoiding' (sic) backers. I've probably missed something....oh, yes, 'anti-semite' for considering voting labour.]
Yes you did. Both of you. You made me quote the laws, International and EU, to you that prevented them from doing it, and then denied it existed. You have gone back to square one as if you were never challenged on the matter. Your memory is remarkably blinkered. I did not make up that quote, from you guys, in my signature. That is the view I was arguing against. Not that they were permitted to enter debate, which I made clear many times. But, seemingly, such an idea was far too nuanced for you. Don't embarass yourself.
Episodes from a life bereft of nuance… But is that a lie or an honest mistake from 63? I, rightly, pointed out that this was the predominant remainer argument (never said it was 63’s opinion, unless directly responding to him saying such a thing) on this forum. Gloriously, someone went on to make exactly the same argument again only a few days after 63 complained about me saying it. Not my fault he takes it personally. So is this a lie or much repeated genuine mistake from 63? I, on three or four occasions (every time he forgets and states his own origin of the term) have directly quoted the original article from which it was coined and it’s reference to the third world as the unwanted detestables. But 63 really does not like being engaged in a civil, fact based conversation, I must assume. Nope. Sorry. Don’t remember this at all. But, as usual, if someone can find it, I’ll take responsibility for it. I think you have a point with some of those comments, so I am not sure why I would have argued the way you say. As I have said, I am naturally a lefty, and no tory. Currently I am simply very anti extremist and most of that is coming from the left these days, including in the comments we see on a football forum. Though there was the time you took incredible umbrage at the idea of me being oikier than you, and declared yourself king of the oiks in a Pythonesque update on The Three Yorkshire Men sketch. This one is a straight up lie. All I have done, after the lefties on here perpetually accused the right of being racists, is point to the facts that demonstrate anti-Semitism, CRT racism, Islamophobia and just plain racism are, demonstrably, according to the complaints of Labour’s own members, a problem for that party. Another of the reasons I am not keen on them. That people vote for them in this knowledge is their own look out, and for them to comment on. The connection between Labour and racism is well established. But as for Labour voters being anti-Semitic, that is not a link I have ever made. It is one only 63 has made in fact. I imagine he is going to accuse me of more of the same for pointing that out. It is a shame that he didn’t think more about how he has tried to smear me here, before revealing his own unconscious conclusions. Someone tell me I am wrong. Tell me I am lying. Go on. How utterly tedious.
Remember that old adage the you can't buy class: Liz Cheney: Trump arch-enemy ousted in Wyoming election
Hilarious!! That would be like Roadrunner being expected to say something nice about Wyle E Coyote. Liz Cheney is set on Trump's utter destruction, and the left think he should show class where she has simply insulted him with every comment she makes! Is that OK. Do people feel safe if the guy they regularly accuse of being 88 uses cartoon characters instead of mentioning historical events from the 20 Century? Perhaps we can have a picture of a dolly so people can point out where hooter hurt them by disagreeing with their comments on a discussion forum?
No one on WFC Forums is as ignored and ostracised as you. Not a single other individual comes close. There are two theories to why this is. Firstly yours, that hateful liberals and lefties can’t handle being scorched by the white hot flame of truth you yield. And alternatively, the majority view, that you are a disrespectful troll, an obvious liar and troublemaker with bizarre and extreme views, who it is impossible to have a sensible conversation with. I hope that goes some way towards answering your question.
Some irony again. I've pointed out genuine racism on this forum, with certain posters referring to entire minority groups in this country as ****s, and doubling down by citing the minorities behaviour in the fifties and sixties as his justification. I was the only person on here to criticise the comment and had three or four other posters react by trying to get me banned. Sidney is the only one who has gone on to completely condemn the comment, and respect to him for that. And, whilst many on here have tried to imply that supporting the Conservatives is closet support for racism, I have pointed out the racism that the Labour party is unable to hide within its own ranks, yet it is me that gets called 88, without having expressed a single racist comment on the forum, or anything thst could be consttued as such. I even called out the condescending use of "Third World" to describe a country like Taiwan, "black and brown people" when describing people whose skin they judged not to be white, and huge assumptions that non- British members of the commonwealt were "black and brown". Not to mention criticisms of me for pointing out the inherrant racism of CRT. I guess anyone reading between the lines can figure out for themselves why some posters are considered "disrespectful trolls" for pointing out such things, by posters who spend their time trying to get people they disagree with banned.
Sorry, missed this one earlier, but you are absolutely right, and I got this totally wrong. Seeing as I say I will own getting something wrong, here I am. Don't expect an apology. Given that you guys tend simply to stop discussing anything if I prove wrong a point you have made, and I could easily have done the lefty thing here. But I say I will admit when I am wrong, and here it is.
Trump has submitted a motion today stating and describing his full cooperation with NARA, including identifying fifteen boxes which he requested NARA collect from Mar a Lago. It describes his positive respones to NARA requests and repeated offers to provide whatever NARA required. It describes him personally providing authority for NARA to enter his storage locations. All this in a legal representation to the court. It also points out issues arising from the claimed responsibilities of the DOJ, many of which were proclaimed by Garland in part one of his Resignation announcement, sorry, press conference, when compared to the warrant and behaviour of the DOJ. Of course its Trump, so there would appear to be no reason why the courts would observe his rights or permit him access to the law. That's what you get for being an enemy of the Democrat party. I like that legal references to precedents set by "Clinton's sock drawer" are being made. Trump was the president after all, even if he was a Republican.
Uh oh, looks like you might be falling for Trump legal filings again, just as you did at the back end of 2021. Meanwhile the legal world is laughing it's arse off at his latest motion as a politics-heavy, law-light load of waffle. As if you 'voluntarily' submit to a grand jury subpoena! It's only one step short of mentioning the bit where the FBI agents all saluted and said, "Sir, this is by the far the most secure storage cupboard we've ever seen, far far better sir than Hillary's email server", the emotion of the moment catching them as they filed out the door with tears in their eyes and a new-found love for Trump in their hearts. For what it's worth though I have no issue with the general thrust of the application made on his behalf, that a special master should be appointed to oversee the evidence filtering, even if far more learned people than me reckon it's only marginally better argued than the drivel Sydney Powell used to submit in his cause. And that someone who had serious concerns wouldn't have waited through a fortnight of fundraising social media posting careful legal deliberation to make this application if their concerns were genuine.
Excellent, its a load of rubbish, but you are happy with it. Love that you are using his fund raising off the back of it. But "what about my emails" T shirts and hats spring to mind. Or, following Roe v Wade being turned over, "Pelosi, please stop asking me for money for this, if you wanted to do something, you have had more than enough opportunities". So. To sum up your review: You used to carry some weight on here. You are more like last man in a county league practice match now.
Only the best lawyers. EDIT: to be clear here, Trump apparently has lawyers but they filed pro se by mistake. Something something competence.
Better to have used to carry some weight on here, than to have never carried any at any point ever Also noted that you have absolutely no substantive arguments in response. Desperate times indeed, but fortunately I appreciate it takes you 3 or 4 successive posts to get your battle lines drawn and your research done, so I'll leave you to it and look forward tremendously to reviewing your 2am missives at the breakfast table tomorrow. Try not to turn it into another "Bbb..bb..but my EU argument that I won, honest guv...' diatribe though. We all know you won that argument bigly, there's no need to rub it in.
Substantial arguments in response? My summary of what you said is accurate. You basically didn't say anything except express contempt. I think my response was more than substantial enough for your post.
Or waited 18 months to raid a former President's house using the broadest possible warrant in order to "scoop up" anything that might be useful. As I said previously. Six years and they have nothing on him. That is the only message coming from this raid. Complete Democrat failure that is communicated by the fact they decided to raid his home with a 'grab everything you can' warrant.
Haha. As I predicted, District Judge Cannon has replied to Trump’s motion: Translation: “Thanks for that load of grandstanding nonsense you dropped in my docket yesterday. It might have fooled Hooter but kindly now file an actual legal submission with, you know, law type things in it. Then maybe we can talk.” She’s a Trump appointee too.
You missed the point of my post. Trump has spelled out his cooperation with the agencies involved and highlighted, to the American people, the differences between what Garland has described as the DOJ's responsibilities and its treatment of a Republican President, in a legal document. Before, he was just making claims. Now he has clarified what was previously speculation, in a legal document to lend it weight. That document, rather than Trump's social media BS, is now the authoritative explanation of Trump's concerns about the DOJ's behaviour, or the utterings of one of his legal team on Fox. If you missed that, it is not my fault. You don't miss the fund raising efforts, but the 'Well actually' response seems to have flown over your head. I guess that has something to do with conditioning (see my signature)
I view the forum with signatures turned off and have done for years, so whatever jibber jabber you’ve got in there is and will remain a mystery to me. And I’ve no idea why you would afford more weight to a legally defective and poorly drafted legal motion filed with a court than Trump just coming out and saying this stuff instead. He certainly has the platform. He could have arranged a press conference at Mar-a-Lago and I suspect every news outlet in the US would run it live while he talked everyone through it. Though I guess he just pleads the fifth now like the mobsters he used to decry, so I can see why he possibly wasn’t up for that. Either way, most of his base (or indeed most Americans) won’t read a several pages long legal filing. And unless his lawyers correct it, it will soon be kicked to the kerb completely in any meaningful legal sense. But I can see one way it’ll have served its purpose as a document of historical interest - it’s essentially his confession to mishandling classified documents over a protracted period of time. Maybe he’s banking on no one on his side actually reading it?
There's essentially no wriggle room on this one. He's been caught red handed in a criminal act, ironically an act that's only criminal because he made it one by way of trying to score political points against Hillary Clinton with his base. Hoist by his own petard.
That is a fair opinion to have. I disagree with it however, and suspect that the filing being quoted as if it is court’s evidence, rather than Truth Social rantings, will notionally give the Trump story greater weight. But if you don’t see that, I am not surprised. Re my signature. It mentions how people on here are conditioned to believe that the EU had a moral right to be involved in a UK referendum, so well so that they insist on arguing the case despite UK, EU and international law - even the spoken opinion of EU leaders. And then they will call someone else an idiot for disagreeing with them. That is evidence of a massive degree of conditioning. Literally the heart of Orwell’s 1984 “2+2 makes five” scene. Not a case of just saying it, but truly believing it, no matter what else you know. Once you understand that, it is much easier to understand the arguments they make and to treat them with the weight they deserve.
?? Democrats openly highlighting denial of liberty by obstructive, over-bearing use of the law. That someone thought this cartoon was flattering to their cause is entirely believable, given the lack of Democrat self awareness, but why they think it is an actual dig at Trump is beyond contemplation. Literally, the law obstructing liberty. And people on here like it? Is anyone still saying the US is not sleep walking into fascism? Because this cartoon appears to be spelling it out in no uncertain terms, to the delight of many 'ordinary' people..
Well you didn't expect them to do it for free? Kimberly Guilfoyle was paid $60,000 speaking fee for Ellipse rally intro, Jan. 6 committee member says
That is an interesting measure of what makes a politician fruit loops. I like it and I agree with it. Here are some more bat poop crazy losers going fruit loops for all to see. Please, do watch… As you can see, Trump was not the only one. Nor was his legal challenge even remotely original. It’s just that he is on the wrong side.
Trump just can't stop "winning" lately. https://www.axios.com/2022/08/24/memo-barr-mueller-trump-obstruction Colour me shocked, Justice Department fudged the die roll.
