It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI
Again, I'm not the one who let Hillary go without even so much as a "quid pro quo"!
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: proximo
Only a fool can't see they are being treated drastically differently.
You only have Trump to blame. He could have gone after Hillary like he promised during the campaign., But he didn't. Why didn't he?
originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Zanti Misfit
And yet both have achieved far more in the legal profession than Barnes
originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66
I mean really? Where to start. His character? Cheating on multiple wives, even while pregnant. Housing discrimination, Trump University, Charity Scandal, refusing to pay workers and contractors, his undocumented models at his modeling company, undocumented workers at Trump Tower, 5 bucks an hour, forced to sleep there, any complaints, threatened with deportation. I mean there's more of you want me to continue.
originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66
Right, my feelings are hurt because he's a crappy person? You talk about feelings all the time, I take it you are quite sensitive. Surprisingly I'm not. I never liked His character. As I said, great for TV, for the head of the country? Not so much.
Continued at: theconservativetreehouse.com... nse-centered-records-not-what-media-claims/#more-247679
Now, does the wording in the Jack Smith indictment that pertains to ânuclear concernsâ and ânational security mattersâ make more sense?
Would all of this hullaballoo really stem from President Trump not giving up personal letters written to him by President Obama and Chairman Kim? YES! Would President Trump even characterize those as government property? NO!
Can you see the way it unfolds? Of course, when you apply the Lawfare lingo, an approach entirely based on maintaining the targeting of Trump, then suddenly the seemingly innocuous becomes horribly nefarious.
In order to pull this off two things would be needed: (1) the DOJ would need to write about it in a certain way in the indictmentâ; and (2) simultaneously, the DOJ would need to stop anyone from viewing the actual documents, as they misleadingly described themâ. Hey, wait⌠thatâs exactly what they did.
originally posted by: carewemust
ANALYSTS-INVESTIGATORS are finding more content in Jack Smith's indictment of Donald Trump that is nothing more than additional "Take Down Trump!", that is based on ZERO real evidence...
Continued at: theconservativetreehouse.com... nse-centered-records-not-what-media-claims/#more-247679
Now, does the wording in the Jack Smith indictment that pertains to ânuclear concernsâ and ânational security mattersâ make more sense?
Would all of this hullaballoo really stem from President Trump not giving up personal letters written to him by President Obama and Chairman Kim? YES! Would President Trump even characterize those as government property? NO!
Can you see the way it unfolds? Of course, when you apply the Lawfare lingo, an approach entirely based on maintaining the targeting of Trump, then suddenly the seemingly innocuous becomes horribly nefarious.
In order to pull this off two things would be needed: (1) the DOJ would need to write about it in a certain way in the indictmentâ; and (2) simultaneously, the DOJ would need to stop anyone from viewing the actual documents, as they misleadingly described themâ. Hey, wait⌠thatâs exactly what they did.
Thank goodness there will be HONEST people in charge of this trial, if it even happens.
originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: nugget1
Wait, I thought the OP is that Trump didn't break the law? So he did, just along with the rest of them? And talk to the GOP about Hillary. I believe there were over 30 investigations into her along with over 11 hours of various testimony from her.
And hey I totally think they need to revamp the whole system around documents leaving premises.
originally posted by: frogs453
originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: frogs453
Someone shows you pics of boxes that may or may not contain 31 TS documents, and you get excited?
Boxes stacked up are as mundane in America as dirty dishes in the sink.
Can you imagine facing obstruction charges for moving boxes around in your master bedroom suite?
I'm so LMFAO at people getting there hair on fire over stacks of boxes.
Can you image the poor Russian spy that has to sneak into MAL and sort thru all those boxes of crap to get to one of the 31 TS docs? It might take him awhile!
Why didn't the FBI raid Bedminster? Did they even search, like the multiple places Bidens were searched?
Excited about boxes? Huh? No one is excited about this. It's quite sad that a former President would ask his attorneys to destroy documents and lie to the government.
You do forget that within many of those boxes were random pages of marked classified docs. No telling what box was what. You think he actually labeled boxes "classified docs"? When the 15 boxes were returned to NARA the docs were mixed in with other items. That's how the request to return classified docs started. There were two people hired last fall to search Bedminster,Trump Tower and a storage facility in Florida for more docs. They have testified before the grand jury.
Why would a spy have to search the boxes, when apparently Trump liked to show them off. He had some in his office. Lots and lots of people have been photographed in his office. He met with SA reps at Bedminster, after he moved docs there according to the text messages from Nauta evidenced in the indictment.