First Former President to Have Home Raided by FBI

A Trump aides laptop with classified documents allegedly turned over to prosecutors. No doubt our Republicans friends will join us in demanding the release of the contents of this Trump laptop from hell to the public before the next Presidential election.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Quality argument Mr. Free thinker.
Click to expand...

You're so crazy it's hard to figure out where to begin. This is hilarious

"Section 1924 makes it a crime to knowingly remove classified documents with the intent to retain them in an unauthorized location. Trump has already admitted his intent to retain the documents and has even demanded they be given back. Good luck proving intent to retain for Biden or Pence. That their search was consensual demonstrates a lack of intent to retain."

So you can keep the classified data for 10 years or so but if you allow a search for it that means there's no intent to retain? Do you realize how ****ing stupid that sounds? "Intent to retain' as you put it covers accidental keeping of the material like if it's accidentally packed in a boxed when moving or so, not this nonsense you're spouting.

Saying that we rarely punish people with classified info. Nothing will happen to Pence or Biden. If it's pushed there might be fines. Here's a hint- nothing will happen to Trump either even if they indict him over it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we would never have even heard about this story if Trump just gave the documents back when asked. These top level people are going to get a huge benefit of the doubt when it comes to these documents. What kind of lawyer do you think Biden and Pence have that would just allow the FBI to search their homes for documents if finding them would be proof of a crime. They would be the worst lawyers ever. Theres only one person that required the government to get a subpoena to get the documents back. Trump refused to allow them access to the storage closet in June where he kept them so they were forced to get a subpoena to get in. What you are doing is comparing someone who forgot to include a pack of water on the bottom of their cart at the grocery store to a person who ran out the store with a cart full of stuff and when the cops show up tries to say its all his stuff he took legally. Biden/Pence cooperated with the FBI to make sure they didnt have anything they shouldnt have at their homes. Trump told them to **** off and obstructed attempts to retrieve them including having his lawyers sign an affidavit he knew was false. You clearly have zero knowledge of how the legal system works and think your personal feelings about a person is enough to exonerate or convict a person.
 
He told them to **** off because those documents are his by legal precedent. I've shown you the case line by line. This is a corrupt DOJ in search of a crime. I know the law better than you. That's why I don't put up stupid **** like you did above.
 
Cool, I look forward to his "these are mine, I took them to keep and had no plans to ever give them back" defense. Should go great. You dont know jack **** about the law. You think not liking Hillary is enough to convict her. You thought the Durham impeachments were legitimate and STILL dont acknowledge they were exonerated. I knew they would be by reading the indictments. You are inserting your emotions and political beliefs to drive your legal opinion. Thats even worse that knowing nothing about the legal system. You are just a partisan hack.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Cool, I look forward to his "these are mine, I took them to keep and had no plans to ever give them back" defense. Should go great. You dont know jack **** about the law. You think not liking Hillary is enough to convict her. You thought the Durham impeachments were legitimate and STILL dont acknowledge they were exonerated. I knew they would be by reading the indictments. You are inserting your emotions and political beliefs to drive your legal opinion. Thats even worse that knowing nothing about the legal system. You are just a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

You are once against proving how uninformed you are. The legal precedent is there for you to see but you won't accept it and neither will a corrupt DOJ. Hillary should have been convicted and that had nothing to do with me liking her or not. She was running classified documents through her server. Durham was more of a sure thing than the OJ case. Once again your lack of knowledge makes you look like a fool.
 
Last edited:
Well good news, you dont need to convince me of legal precedent. Only a judge and potentially a jury. Your can cry all you want about it, I have no control over it sir.


As for Hillary, you have been confronted with the facts and still post this BS and want to insult others. She had something like 2 documents that were classified AFTER being put on her server. That you cry about political motives regarding Trump but cant see that the Hillary **** was 1000% poltically motivated to smear Hillary for political gain shows how far up your ass your head is.


As for Durham, you have also been confronted with the facts multiple times and just keep circling back. Sussman cant meet with the FBI on behalf of the Clinton campaign when the Clinton campaign specifically did not want him to do that. Email evidence shows Hillary had no faith in the FBI to investigate it and viewed the FBI as biased against her. You dont have to agree with that, but thats what the email evidence showed them saying at the time. You want to whine about things Trump is investigated for but you have no issue with trying to prosecute Sussman for an insignificant statement. Sussman wasnt charged with lying about the allegations he told the FBI. Might as well prosecute him for misspelling his own name or some other insignificant BS not even related to the issue. Meanwhile you defend people who lied about meeting Russians and then lied again about whether they discussed sanctions to an investigation about Russian collusion who confessed multiple times under oath.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Well good news, you dont need to convince me of legal precedent. Only a judge and potentially a jury. Your can cry all you want about it, I have no control over it sir.


As for Hillary, you have been confronted with the facts and still post this BS and want to insult others. She had something like 2 documents that were classified AFTER being put on her server. That you cry about political motives regarding Trump but cant see that the Hillary **** was 1000% poltically motivated to smear Hillary for political gain shows how far up your ass your head is.


As for Durham, you have also been confronted with the facts multiple times and just keep circling back. Sussman cant meet with the FBI on behalf of the Clinton campaign when the Clinton campaign specifically did not want him to do that. Email evidence shows Hillary had no faith in the FBI to investigate it and viewed the FBI as biased against her. You dont have to agree with that, but thats what the email evidence showed them saying at the time. You want to whine about things Trump is investigated for but you have no issue with trying to prosecute Sussman for an insignificant statement. Sussman wasnt charged with lying about the allegations he told the FBI. Might as well prosecute him for misspelling his own name or some other insignificant BS not even related to the issue. Meanwhile you defend people who lied about meeting Russians and then lied again about whether they discussed sanctions to an investigation about Russian collusion who confessed multiple times under oath.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about you being uninformed and immune to facts. There were a lot more than 2 documents in Hillary's server. Once again you're falling for MSM propaganda.

Sussman billed Hillary for his meeting with the FBI. What does that tell you? All of what you're saying about the e-mails are either nonsense or Hillary changed her mind. I've already proved it was material to the case in the fact that Baker wouldn't have met with him if he knew he was representing Hillary. Sussman lied.

LOL! You still believe in the FBI after what they have have pulled. These were scams to make their case look stronger than it was. K.T. McFarland was harassed by the FBI and they demanded she lie about Trump or she would get indicted too. Luckily, she had a friend in the FBI that told them to stop harassing her.

You've have fallen for every scam but you still believe everything the media tells you. Btw, how are those Russian bounties going?
 
I am sorry if I misremember anything from like 8 years ago. As I have always said, if you got evidence please charge Hillary. I was desperately rooting for her to be charged at the time and that was specifically because I hate her and not based on the facts, I hate her so much I dont even care if the charges is legitimate. **** her.


You have a better case Sussman defrauded the Hillary campaign. Again, in emails, the Alfa bank allegation is discussed. They dont even know if the allegation is true because the evidence is a lot of high tech data. In the emails they say the media will do more to vet the story than the FBI so they decide to give the story to the media. They specifically cite that they dont trust the FBI. Then Sussman goes to the FBI. In what world can that be interpreted as Sussman acting as part of the campaign? As has been pointed out before, if they wanted to deceive the FBI they dont send a guy well known to be working for the Clinton campaign?
 
cajunrevenge said:
I am sorry if I misremember anything from like 8 years ago. As I have always said, if you got evidence please charge Hillary. I was desperately rooting for her to be charged at the time and that was specifically because I hate her and not based on the facts, I hate her so much I dont even care if the charges is legitimate. **** her.


You have a better case Sussman defrauded the Hillary campaign. Again, in emails, the Alfa bank allegation is discussed. They dont even know if the allegation is true because the evidence is a lot of high tech data. In the emails they say the media will do more to vet the story than the FBI so they decide to give the story to the media. They specifically cite that they dont trust the FBI. Then Sussman goes to the FBI. In what world can that be interpreted as Sussman acting as part of the campaign? As has been pointed out before, if they wanted to deceive the FBI they dont send a guy well known to be working for the Clinton campaign?
Click to expand...

More like Hillary and team were trying to create plausible deniability in case anything gets looked at than Sussman defrauding Hillary. If he bills her doesn't that show that he was working for her? This isn't rocket science.

Hillary and her team never mentioned being defrauded by Sussman so that possibility is minimal at best.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what you think, what matters is what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt on a court of law. For the last time, just because you don't like her isn't evidence.
 
lol. Sussman billed Hillary because he was working for her. I know that goes against the narrative that you're clinging to but it's the truth.
 
Last edited:
Cool story bro, fact remains he was fully exonerated. You are entitled to your opinion. Lord knows there's plenty of people I think are guilty that either were never prosecuted or convicted.
 



Another good one. Imagine some came back from the future and said one of these two people would be under multiple indictments and whining that its weaponized law enforcement against them. Then they told you it was Trump.
 
The DoJ gave very poorly chosen one many opportunities to work this out. He wasnt interested. Too bad for him.
 
Exactly, these are self inflicted wounds. All he had to do was file a lawsuit and ask for an injunction. He thinks he can get away with anything. And as the Stooges here have shown, they will buy whatever he sells no matter how much of a **** sandwich it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top