The far-right loses it over Trump indictment

[Synthaholic]

You omitted the word “allegedly.”

And even if there is such a tape, you haven’t heard it and you don’t know what is being distorted and misrepresented about whatever he may have said.

So if this turns out to be accurate, then in your view Trump is guilty as hell, and should see prison time? Don't deflect. Put yourself on the record without waffling.

Trump on tape: ‘Now I can’t’ declassify secret Iran papers
Former president’s top two lawyers depart, and Trump says his loyal aide has been indicted alongside him

The fast-moving developments in the wake of the sealed indictment included new details about the evidence that led to the charges, including an audio recording from 2021 in which Trump talks about an apparently secret document and says, “As president, I could have declassified it, but now I can’t,” a person familiar with a transcript of the remarks said Friday.

The recording was made in the summer of 2021 as Trump spoke to researchers for a book being written by his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to people familiar with the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe elements of the case.

 

[dudmuck]

Nope. That’s not what it says.

IN order to rely on the PRA, you must first fully read and understand the various provisions of the PRA. Obviously, you haven’t.

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of...

www.archives.gov

see here :
Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Fun to watch the conspiracy maga theories in full effort.

 

[BackAgain]

So if this turns out to be accurate, then in your view Trump is guilty as hell, and should see prison time? Don't deflect. Put yourself on the record without waffling.

Trump on tape: ‘Now I can’t’ declassify secret Iran papers
Former president’s top two lawyers depart, and Trump says his loyal aide has been indicted alongside him

The fast-moving developments in the wake of the sealed indictment included new details about the evidence that led to the charges, including an audio recording from 2021 in which Trump talks about an apparently secret document and says, “As president, I could have declassified it, but now I can’t,” a person familiar with a transcript of the remarks said Friday.

The recording was made in the summer of 2021 as Trump spoke to researchers for a book being written by his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to people familiar with the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe elements of the case.

Once again, you studiously elect to ignore the other question of context. And you haven’t heard the tape and you don’t know the context. Basically, you’re guessing.

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of...

www.archives.gov

see here :
Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.

So you understand the distinction between “legal custody” and “possession?”

Sorry. Your selective snippets don’t establish that you have sweated the details but only serve to confirm your general ignorance.

 

[Synthaholic]

Once again, you studiously elect to ignore the other question of context. And you haven’t heard the tape and you don’t know the context. Basically, you’re guessing.

So you understand the distinction between “legal custody” and “possession?”

Sorry. Your selective snippets don’t establish that you have sweated the details but only serve to confirm your general ignorance.

What part of "if this turns out to be accurate" didn't you understand?

 

[BackAgain]

What part of "if this turns out to be accurate" didn't you understand?

The part where you left out the context.

As you already knew, you fabricating fool.

 

[BackAgain]

This lesson is not just for Synthia. Lots of you petty ass narrow minded libturds need to get up to speed.

If someone accuses me of having committed a murder and I say, “right,” that could mean that I just admitted the truth of the allegation OR it could be a very sarcastic way of denying the stupid claim.

The difference? Not the word used, but the context. Sarcasm changes the whole meaning.

When you libturds “quote” something allegedly spoken by former President Trumps, two issues arise:

First is: whether or not he actually said the words at all.

Second is: what was the context of the words allegedly spoken?

 

[Synthaholic]

The part where you left out the context.

As you already knew, you fabricating fool.

There is no mitigating context. My question "if this turns out to be accurate" is taking all context into account. That's what "accurate" means.

Now slither some more for us. Or just say something concrete, denying me another win.

 

[Captain Caveman]

How many threads do you think there would have been if Hunter's laptop got indicted??


Because last I checked, his laptop ain't even close to being indicted and I bet there are easily 73,277 threads about it anyway ....mostly about Hunter's dick...which is even more pathetic

I'm in England, when I clicked on the forum, thread after thread of Trump indictment was in my face. I thought, "Fuck me, the cranks on America are having a field day".

Don't worry by Hunter, the FBI buried that evidence.

 

[Synthaholic]

This lesson is not just for Synthia. Lots of you petty ass narrow minded libturds need to get up to speed.

If someone accuses me of having committed a murder and I say, “right,” that could mean that I just admitted the truth of the allegation OR it could be a very sarcastic way of denying the stupid claim.

The difference? Not the word used, but the context. Sarcasm changes the whole meaning.

When you libturds “quote” something allegedly spoken by former President Trumps, two issues arise:

First is: whether or not he actually said the words at all.

Second is: what was the context of the words allegedly spoken?

Then your examples would not be "accurate", would they.

 

[skews13]

Too funny...these guy make a living out of wildly ranting about whatever..weaving in dog whistles and conspiracy--while the faithful eat it up:

MSN

www.msn.com

While a number of Republican lawmakers rushed to comment on their disgust over the indictment of former President Donald Trump for his mishandling of classified documents, the far-right took a different route, diving into the deep end of hyperbole without a flotation device.
Male supremacist and racist Michael Cernovich was desperately triggered by the news, saying that it was like "the JFK assassination all over again." He later explained that it was the "deep state" that killed JFK and they did it with bullets. The Justice Department is doing it in the case with the law.



White nationalist Stephen Miller appeared on the Fox network to say that the most important thing that must take place is that every Republican must rally around the former president. It's not know yet how opponents of Trump's in the 2024 race will respond to that.



Donald Trump's lawyer Alina Habba, who once referred to the New York attorney general as a "Black b---h," and would use the N-word regularly, also appeared on the Fox network. Speaking to Jesse Watters, she explained, "I'm embarrassed to be a lawyer at this moment. Honestly, I'm ashamed to be a lawyer."
Her comments come fewer than five months after she and Trump were forced to pay nearly $938,000 in penalties for a "frivolous lawsuit" against Hillary Clinton and 30 other defendants. The judge in the case said the lawsuits were "drafted to advance a political narrative" and should "never have been brought."


Fox host Mark Levin ranted that the tens of millions of Trump supporters still exist. "You have crossed the Rubicon twice, which has never been done, and we will never forgive you. Never ever!"
The comment prompted MSNBC host Chris Hayes to correct that the Rubicon is all one river. "So that would mean you...crossed back over it in retreat?"

My Korean War Vet father use to call them “Happy Idiots”

 

[BackAgain]

There is no mitigating context. My question "if this turns out to be accurate" is taking all context into account.That's what "accurate" means.

False. You lie an awful lot. If you have to rely on lies as much as you do, your posts are worthless. And they are mostly all worthless.

It could be construed as truthful and accurate to claim he said a particular phrase and yet be inaccurate as to what was actually said in the context of the rest of the conversation.

You, being the simpleton you are, use the indefinite pronoun “this.” What you intended to say was not presented clearly. As usual.

Now slither some more for us. Or just say something concrete, denying me another win.

You’ve never won. You’re far too stupid and dishonest to win.

Admit that your use of the word “this” was and remains ambiguous, or go fuck off.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Well, we all know the template:

• Trump is innocent, always
• Trump is the victim, always
• Deep State Swamp Commies Satan Hitler
• But Biden
• But Hillary
• But Soros
• Oh, and Trump is innocent, always

They're just background noise now. Any cases that go to court will hopefully separate reality from bullshit one way or the other. And either way, they'll be using the above template. Just noise.

Well yes, you are correct, Trump and everyone is innocent unless found guilty in a court of law.

 

[Synthaholic]

False. You lie an awful lot. If you have to rely on lies as much as you do, your posts are worthless. And they are mostly all worthless.

It could be construed as truthful and accurate to claim he said a particular phrase and yet be inaccurate as to what was actually said in the context of the rest of the conversation.

You, being the simpleton you are, use the indefinite pronoun “this.” What you intended to say was not presented clearly. As usual.

You’ve never won. You’re far too stupid and dishonest to win.

Admit that your use of the word “this” was and remains ambiguous, or go fuck off.

Slither...slither...slither...

OK: "if it turns out to be accurate that Trump had in his possession classified documents that he was not authorized to have and it is proven that he knew he was in possesion illegally, by his own words on tape"

Tap dance on that one.

 

[BackAgain]

Slither...slither...slither...

Yes. You do. All the time.

OK: "if it turns out to be accurate that Trump had in his possession classified documents that he was not authorized to have and it is proven that he knew he was in possesion illegally, by his own words on tape"

Tap dance on that one.

What a fantastic question. “If actual guilt is established.” That’s your fucking premise. You moron.

If he did “it” and it is against the law and if he did it with the requisite mental culpability, he would be found guilty and under all those circumstances that would be a proper verdict.

I suppose once we get past your faulty original premise and come down with your rephrased but silly premise, your question is “whether I would support Trump at that point?” The answer is “no.”

But you, being a fundamentally dishonest libturd hypocrite, will support Brandon regardless of whether it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he engaged in a bribery scheme with his son and others for big bucks.

Then your examples would not be "accurate", would they.

They are. . They are hypotheticals, you babbling buffoon.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

For the Trump sycophants still trying to treat this thing like its no big deal...

Does it matter which documents Trump was so desperate to hide from the National Archives? Does it matter why he tried so hard to lie to the FBI and hang on to those documents??


Why is it so important that your cult leader hang on to classified docs about our weapons capabilities and what our strategic weaknesses are?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

When they have his own confession on tape how can this be a conspiracy against him ?
That just seems to be a knee jerk reaction to any bump in the road.
Nobody should be above the law.

 

[tahuyaman]

When they have his own confession on tape how can this be a conspiracy against him ?
That just seems to be a knee jerk reaction to any bump in the road.
Nobody should be above the law.

A tape no one can verify even exists. Lol.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

A tape no one can verify even exists. Lol.

Well we will see.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I haven’t lost anything. The more the Left goes after Trump, the more they expose themselves.