Special counsel got a search warrant for Twitter to turn over info on Trump’s account

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Turquosie

Two sides of the same insane coin. Same fanatic energy.

Is it?

Because I can provide links here locally and to MSM articles of Rs against some of Trumps policies and actions.

Can we do the same with Ds and Biden....?

Search my posts. I've complained about lots of Trump policies I don't/didn't agree with.

Red flag laws, for instance.

a reply to: SourGrapes

Myself as well, and a handful of others.


Odd how we don't see any D's here or in leadership roles doing the same for Biden.....

You've been bamboozled. And the bamboozling will continue, so long as you keep financing it.

Democrats reportedly outpaced Republicans in raising and spending so-called “dark money” from undisclosed donors in 2020, according to a new investigation from The New York Times.

The Times found that 15 of the most politically active non-profit organizations that typically support the Democratic Party spent more than $1.5 billion in 2020, while 15 similar groups that usually side with the GOP used about $900 million.

The term dark money is typically used to refer to money spent to sway politics by organizations that are not required to make their donors known. The term, however, does not have an official legal definition.

While nonprofit organizations are permitted to funnel money into partisan politics, it is not supposed to be their main activity, the Times notes.

The newspaper found that a group called the Sixteen Thirty Fund spent more than $410 million in 2020, which was more than the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had used up that year. The fund reportedly received secret donations of $50 million and allocated money to more than 200 entities.

It's always about the money; corruption knows no political party. Winner takes all!
[thehill.com...]

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SourGrapes

Myself as well, and a handful of others.


Odd how we don't see any D's here or in leadership roles doing the same for Biden.....

All their time is spent justifying his existence. There's no time for policy talk. MSM doesn't talk policy.

a reply to: SourGrapes

I've had people on this site that still believe in the Steele Dossier, blame Trump for the open border and for the inflation and gas prices.

We're dealing with a population that isn't very bright.

If you consider that the average IQ is 100, then just using a Bell Curve, half of the posters here are below average.

Which leads me to the point of this thread, no matter the actual guilt or innocence of Trump, the slower ones among us will already consider him guilty.

Of what?

It doesn't matter.

TV said Orange Man Bad, so Orange Man Bad.

originally posted by: nugget1

You've been bamboozled. And the bamboozling will continue, so long as you keep financing it.

Democrats reportedly outpaced Republicans in raising and spending so-called “dark money” from undisclosed donors in 2020, according to a new investigation from The New York Times.

The Times found that 15 of the most politically active non-profit organizations that typically support the Democratic Party spent more than $1.5 billion in 2020, while 15 similar groups that usually side with the GOP used about $900 million.

The term dark money is typically used to refer to money spent to sway politics by organizations that are not required to make their donors known. The term, however, does not have an official legal definition.

While nonprofit organizations are permitted to funnel money into partisan politics, it is not supposed to be their main activity, the Times notes.

The newspaper found that a group called the Sixteen Thirty Fund spent more than $410 million in 2020, which was more than the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had used up that year. The fund reportedly received secret donations of $50 million and allocated money to more than 200 entities.

It's always about the money; corruption knows no political party. Winner takes all!
[thehill.com...]

I wonder how much of that money is foreign? I also wonder if Democrats even see a problem with it?

a reply to: SourGrapes

If investigators get a search warrant, like they did in Trump's case, they can gain access to those things.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If you consider that the average IQ is 100, then just using a Bell Curve, half of the posters here are below average.

I feel attacked.


...but youre not wrong.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DBCowboy

If you consider that the average IQ is 100, then just using a Bell Curve, half of the posters here are below average.

I feel attacked.


...but youre not wrong.

Don't worry, my IQ is probably a B. So @ 83. But I got readings not wokes.

a reply to: JinMI

They tried to get the IP address for every single person that visited a website that organized a protest of Trump's inauguration.

The only reason it was rejected is because it was overly broad.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

They tried to get the IP address for every single person that visited a website that organized a protest of Trump's inauguration.

The only reason it was rejected is because it was overly broad.

Shall we compare to J6?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DBCowboy

If you consider that the average IQ is 100, then just using a Bell Curve, half of the posters here are below average.

I feel attacked.


...but youre not wrong.

Don't worry, my IQ is probably a B. So @ 83. But I got readings not wokes.

They dont give machinists IQ test.

My only claim to intelligence is proving my gradeschool teachers wrong by using a calculator daily.

a reply to: Mahogany

Looking @ Jack I started seeing someone else - maybe a relative

my overlay - i am a rookie lol

Jack & Adam Schiff

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SourGrapes

Myself as well, and a handful of others.


Odd how we don't see any D's here or in leadership roles doing the same for Biden.....

They would be cancelled in a heartbeat.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SourGrapes

Myself as well, and a handful of others.


Odd how we don't see any D's here or in leadership roles doing the same for Biden.....

They would be cancelled in a heartbeat.

Doesnt sound very democratic to me.

...but what do i know

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Annee

It was his personal account. Not his government account. He can't really claim executive privilege over it.

Thanks. Good to know.

One more curious. Cannot everyday citizens be held accountable for what they post — especially if it incites aggressive/dangerous group behavior?

Does that include our private DMs, drafts, and locations we've driven?

Is anything considered "private" anymore? or, just BAMN?

Never, EVER write anything online, whether it be e mails, text, DMs or what is supposed to be any kind of private messaging. It's not.
If you wouldn't yell it standing on the street corner, don't put it online. If I want to tell my friends or family anything private, I don't call or text them, I wait till I see them in person.

originally posted by: DAVID64

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Annee

It was his personal account. Not his government account. He can't really claim executive privilege over it.

Thanks. Good to know.

One more curious. Cannot everyday citizens be held accountable for what they post — especially if it incites aggressive/dangerous group behavior?

Does that include our private DMs, drafts, and locations we've driven?

Is anything considered "private" anymore? or, just BAMN?

Never, EVER write anything online, whether it be e mails, text, DMs or what is supposed to be any kind of private messaging. It's not.
If you wouldn't yell it standing on the street corner, don't put it online. If I want to tell my friends or family anything private, I don't call or text them, I wait till I see them in person.

I hope you put your phones, tv's, etc in other rooms.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: DAVID64

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Annee

It was his personal account. Not his government account. He can't really claim executive privilege over it.

Thanks. Good to know.

One more curious. Cannot everyday citizens be held accountable for what they post — especially if it incites aggressive/dangerous group behavior?

Does that include our private DMs, drafts, and locations we've driven?

Is anything considered "private" anymore? or, just BAMN?

Never, EVER write anything online, whether it be e mails, text, DMs or what is supposed to be any kind of private messaging. It's not.
If you wouldn't yell it standing on the street corner, don't put it online. If I want to tell my friends or family anything private, I don't call or text them, I wait till I see them in person.

I hope you put your phones, tv's, etc in other rooms.

Eyes everywhere

originally posted by: DAVID64

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Annee

It was his personal account. Not his government account. He can't really claim executive privilege over it.

Thanks. Good to know.

One more curious. Cannot everyday citizens be held accountable for what they post — especially if it incites aggressive/dangerous group behavior?

Does that include our private DMs, drafts, and locations we've driven?

Is anything considered "private" anymore? or, just BAMN?

Never, EVER write anything online, whether it be e mails, text, DMs or what is supposed to be any kind of private messaging. It's not.
If you wouldn't yell it standing on the street corner, don't put it online. If I want to tell my friends or family anything private, I don't call or text them, I wait till I see them in person.

What does that (online posting) have to do with private DMs, texting, and location statuses?

I'd never type anything, on or offline, that I wouldn't say in person. However, isn't there a level of expected privacy?

Or, are we supposed to all be watched, recorded, and archived for possible future crimes? How about crimes that aren't crimes today?

Hopefully, we can change laws and go back through private messages and see who typed or said anything someone else doesn't like. That'd be awesome!

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: SwissMarked

… to cover for the NSA that already has it…

The hell you say…..

The NSA has every bit of information at their fingertips they need to either destroy our way of life or fix it… they know who the Goddamn pedos are… the drug traffickers… the people peddlers… every single person that robbed and looted that was deemed a “peaceful protester”… yet they only give up the information that provides a net benefit for the corrupt scumbags that seek to undermine the Constitution and turn this nation commie red…