a professional environmentalists take on Hunter Biden laptop [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

wdmso

01-18-2023, 03:06 PM

Michael Shellenberger is a journalist/activist for the environment and for homelessness. He was a registered democrat until last year, now he’s an independent. TIME magazine labeled him a “hero of the environment”. Not foxnews, but TIME.

In other words, He’s not Sean Hannity.

Musk gave him access to the Twitter files related to Hunters laptop. Here’s his take. It’s pretty obvious what happened here. There aren’t a lot of different conclusions one can arrive at. Shellenberger is a rare journalist who’s not blinded by ideology ( those exist on both sides), he goes where the truth takes him.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/elon-musk-chose-me-report-twitter-files-disturbing-things-learned-fbi

It likely would have taken a few hours for the FBI to confirm that the laptop had belonged to Hunter Biden. Indeed, it only took a few days for the journalist Peter Schweizer to prove it. (See video from the tweet below.) And yet the FBI did nothing to investigate the many signs of criminal activity revealed by emails and other documents on the laptop.

And yet the FBI did nothing to investigate the many signs of criminal activity revealed by emails and other documents on the laptop.

Now I know why Jim and Fox News likes this guy he has no understanding of how justice works how evidence works

Based on this logic. I should be able to give the FBI a note and some paperwork I found and claimed
Jim had illegal business dealings a hooker on the side .which I thought were crimes

And the FBI should have taken all at face value and arrested and charged Jim. With my imaginary crimes the next day

But leave George Santos alone he did nothing wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

01-18-2023, 03:11 PM

Now that Biden has eliminated Covid (cough, cough), I'll take the pre covid Trump over Biden any day, any way.

But, since he's done so well, surely the Dems want him in 2024.

I'll take the pre covid Trump

Is that before or after he tried to steal the election?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-18-2023, 03:14 PM

I'll take the pre covid Trump

Is that before or after he tried to steal the election?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When did you stop beating your wife?

wdmso

01-18-2023, 03:35 PM

Michael Shellenberger Interview With Tucker Carlson Seems he’s a favorite of Tuckers.

Some more How the radical Left turned America's cities into “slums” | Michael Shellenberger

Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger

Shocking Jim would throw him out as some super liberal

Conservatives love their needle in a haystack
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

01-18-2023, 04:55 PM

So musk allows only one person to cherry pick and you feel that’s enough evidence Jim? Investigating a crime scene after the neighborhood has walked thru it won’t hold up in court, which copy of the hard drive should we believe Jim? All aboard the crazy train is leaving the station.

here, CBS says it’s real. You know more than CBS? CBS is in on the right wing setup?

https://nypost.com/2022/11/21/cbs-confirms-hunter-biden-laptop-is-real-769-days-after-post-broke-story/amp/

wdmso

01-18-2023, 07:05 PM

here, CBS says it’s real. You know more than CBS? CBS is in on the right wing setup?

https://nypost.com/2022/11/21/cbs-confirms-hunter-biden-laptop-is-real-769-days-after-post-broke-story/amp/

Jim’s logic the laptop is real .so by default so is everything on it…

Yet no one knows what was on before Rudy got a hold of it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

01-18-2023, 07:13 PM

That's ridiculous speculation. And rather crude at that. And various Dems were saying not to trust the vaccine because Trump was responsible for getting it produced. There was, as expected, a bunch of back and forth political bull$hit going on. There are still a lot of folks dying from Covid now. I think I saw that slightly more died under Biden's regime than under Trump in about equal time frames. And that the vaccine does not, as originally promised, actually prevent getting Covid, nor prevent transmitting it. It just, supposedly, makes it less severe and helps older folks with pre-existing conditions to survive at a better rate.

So "focusing," as has been going on for the last three or four years does not prevent more transmission, as we can see as many are still getting it and dying from it.

Of course that's no big deal now because Biden ended the pandemic so there is no need to create weekly headlines about the number of deaths.

Dems were saying not to trust the vaccine because Trump was responsible for getting it produced.

Wow you’re deep down that rabbit hole ..

Dems we’re saying that because Trump was pushing the release of the vaccine to benefit him before the election. Not because he was responsible for getting it produced

Keep up the fantasies

The reality is the Maga horde and the anti vac crowd
Praised Trump and gave him all the credit for the vaccine production

Then refused to take it ! Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

01-18-2023, 07:49 PM

That's ridiculous speculation. And rather crude at that. And various Dems were saying not to trust the vaccine because Trump was responsible for getting it produced. There was, as expected, a bunch of back and forth political bull$hit going on. There are still a lot of folks dying from Covid now. I think I saw that slightly more died under Biden's regime than under Trump in about equal time frames. And that the vaccine does not, as originally promised, actually prevent getting Covid, nor prevent transmitting it. It just, supposedly, makes it less severe and helps older folks with pre-existing conditions to survive at a better rate.

So "focusing," as has been going on for the last three or four years does not prevent more transmission, as we can see as many are still getting it and dying from it.

Of course that's no big deal now because Biden ended the pandemic so there is no need to create weekly headlines about the number of deaths.

Apparently you’re wrong

Almost Twice as Many Republicans Died From COVID Before the Midterms Than Democrats:

After vaccines were widely available—the Republican excess death rate rose to nearly double that of Democrats, and this gap widened further in the winter of 2021.

They really owned the libs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-18-2023, 09:39 PM

Apparently you’re wrong

Almost Twice as Many Republicans Died From COVID Before the Midterms Than Democrats:

After vaccines were widely available—the Republican excess death rate rose to nearly double that of Democrats, and this gap widened further in the winter of 2021.

They really owned the libs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice joke about how many Dems vs Repubs died. I didn't know that they actually somehow checked what the party affiliation of every corpse was. Kind of ghoulish. Did they check their gender identification as well? Did the Cis outnumber the Trannies.

A quick look at various articles I came across, this from CNN Health: "preliminary data from Johns Hopkins University, compared with more than 350,000 Covid-19 deaths in 2020 and more than 475,000 Covid-19 deaths in 2021" when there were no vaccines in most of 2020 with first vax shots occurring in mid December, and vaccines administered through all of 2021. Which squares with what I said "I think I saw that slightly more died under Biden's regime than under Trump in about equal time frames"--being the last year (1920 for Trump) and first year under Biden (1921 under Biden). So I wasn't "wrong." Of course there are variables to consider, but Covid variants continue strong. It was not shocking, though, that as soon as Biden took over, there wasn't as much of this scary constant weekly headline tallying of covid deaths in the media and drummed by you in this forum.

But it's old news and who cares. And the death toll is up to 1,107,998+595 now. Of course, Elaine Chao, as you pointed out, says that "maybe" it's Trumps fault. Yeah, right.

Pete F.

01-19-2023, 12:20 AM

Nice joke about how many Dems vs Repubs died. I didn't know that they actually somehow checked what the party affiliation of every corpse was. Kind of ghoulish. Did they check their gender identification as well? Did the Cis outnumber the Trannies.

A quick look at various articles I came across, this from CNN Health: "preliminary data from Johns Hopkins University, compared with more than 350,000 Covid-19 deaths in 2020 and more than 475,000 Covid-19 deaths in 2021" when there were no vaccines in most of 2020 with first vax shots occurring in mid December, and vaccines administered through all of 2021. Which squares with what I said "I think I saw that slightly more died under Biden's regime than under Trump in about equal time frames"--being the last year (1920 for Trump) and first year under Biden (1921 under Biden). So I wasn't "wrong." Of course there are variables to consider, but Covid variants continue strong. It was not shocking, though, that as soon as Biden took over, there wasn't as much of this scary constant weekly headline tallying of covid deaths in the media and drummed by you in this forum.

But it's old news and who cares. And the death toll is up to 1,107,998+595 now. Of course, Elaine Chao, as you pointed out, says that "maybe" it's Trumps fault. Yeah, right.

Actually it’s pretty simple
Based on death rates in counties and voting records
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

01-19-2023, 09:06 AM

When did you stop beating your wife?

Did I hit a nerve? Won’t answer a simple before or after . Your just another of many cowards who support Trumps and his followers attempts to overturn a national election . Attempting to hide behind long Manifesto type responses .filled linguistic double talk. Conspiracy theories supported by The worlds geniuses on YouTube.

You fit the Unabomber profile perfectly Unabomber's writings were a "pivotal factor" to help pinpoint the age and geographic origin of their suspect.

I heard they had internet in federal prison Ted . Is it True

Nebe

01-19-2023, 09:37 AM

detbuch

01-19-2023, 12:31 PM

Dems were saying not to trust the vaccine because Trump was responsible for getting it produced.

Wow you’re deep down that rabbit hole ..

Dems we’re saying that because Trump was pushing the release of the vaccine to benefit him before the election. Not because he was responsible for getting it produced

Oh, so the Dems were talking down the vaccine because the release of it before the election would benefit Trump.
Wow, that's a good reason to cause distrust of the vaccine--because it would benefit Trump. Does that mean that it would be OK to wait until after the election to release it? Dems constantly Blaming Trump for acting too slowly, but then saying wait awhile before releasing the vaccine. Hey, it was released before the election, Biden won, and then he claimed credit for pushing the vaccine.

Here's another way Biden and Harris talked it down, from FOX, (oh the horror, from FOX, it must be false)--:Biden repeatedly indicated only if there was enough "transparency" would he take the vaccine and that the "American people should not have confidence" in the vaccine developed by the Trump administration if his concerns weren't addressed.

Harris was heard during a CNN interview that getting a vaccine that's approved by the Trump administration would be "an issue for all of us" and "if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it" during the vice presidential debate.

Keep up the fantasies

Nah, it was pretty much in line with what I recollected but didn't remember it to the tee.

The reality is the Maga horde and the anti vac crowd
Praised Trump and gave him all the credit for the vaccine production

Then refused to take it ! Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most Republicans did take the vaccine. Keep up the fantasies.

Pete F.

01-19-2023, 12:46 PM

Most Republicans did take the vaccine. Keep up the fantasies.

Far to many Trumplicans poisoned themselves with the concoctions suggested by the Stable Genius and conspiracies promoted by him and right wing media.
A little light, some bleach, oleandrin and dewormer you’ll be fine.
Better than being injected with a micro chip or becoming a part of the biomedical security state.
Unfortunately more Republicans died from Covid but you can’t fix stupid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-19-2023, 12:56 PM

Did I hit a nerve? Won’t answer a simple before or after .

It was not a "simple" before or after, it was a gotcha type question based on a presumed "fact" that I was not certain of but answering it would make it seem that, indeed, it was a fact not a presumption. So I asked you a "simple" type gotcha question in response. Must of hit a nerve.

Your just another of many cowards who support Trumps and his followers attempts to overturn a national election .

I don't support him attempting to "overturn" the election illegally. Why does that make me a coward.

Attempting to hide behind long Manifesto type responses

Didn't realize they were THAT long.

.filled linguistic double talk.

I don't like that I did that. It wasn't intentional.
Can you help me and point out the double talk so I won't do it again.

Conspiracy theories supported by The worlds geniuses on YouTube.

My, my, your going off a bit on the deep end here.

You fit the Unabomber profile perfectly Unabomber's writings were a "pivotal factor" to help pinpoint the age and geographic origin of their suspect.

I'm sure I fit many profiles. Some of them are even good and nice. Didn't know Unabomber was one. Hmmm . . .

I heard they had internet in federal prison Ted . Is it True

How dare they have internet in federal prison. It shouldn't even be outside of prison. It's all about conspiracies . . . sort of like the one you concocted in this post.

detbuch

01-19-2023, 01:05 PM

Far to many Trumplicans poisoned themselves with the concoctions suggested by the Stable Genius and conspiracies promoted by him and right wing media.
A little light, some bleach, oleandrin and dewormer you’ll be fine.
Better than being injected with a micro chip or becoming a part of the biomedical security state.
Unfortunately more Republicans died from Covid but you can’t fix stupid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Geeze . . . this was in response to my saying that most Republicans took the vaccine. Phew!

Jim in CT

01-19-2023, 01:29 PM

Geeze . . . this was in response to my saying that most Republicans took the vaccine. Phew!

you’re not a liberal, therefore you’re not allowed to ever make a valid point.

Jim in CT

01-19-2023, 01:34 PM

the laptop.. the ultimate tool for the 'whataboutism' cult. The GOP is enraged that Joe's son may have been given special treatment by foreign governemts for his own gain, but dont seem at all concerned by the fact that Trump maintained a secret bank account in China durring his whole presidency, that his daughter recieved several fast tracked patents in China and that his Son in law recieved a 2 billion payment from saudi arabia for his "hedge fund". And lets not forget to mention all of the crimes that all of the Trump family have already been convicted of.

But that laptop... boy oh boy... :lama:

pathetic hypocrisy.

You don’t have a clue what’s in the laptop, but you conclude it can’t be anything.

and the issue for many isn’t so much what’s on the laptop. It’s what the FBI and the media did to bury it right before the election. if you’re ok with the federal government and the media conspiring to bury a story in an effort to help a democrat, don’t complain if they eventually do the same thing to help a republican.

Nebe, it was a legit story, and they knew it was legit, but because they didn’t like the politics, they said that those who talked about it were spreading russian disinformation. you’re ok with that?

wdmso

01-19-2023, 02:25 PM

wdmso

01-19-2023, 02:34 PM

Along party lines, however, the breakdown was 92% of Democrats, 68% of Independents, and 56% of Republicans.

There is no reason to believe that these gaps in vaccination rates will disappear anytime soon. According to Gallup, 40% of Republicans “don’t plan” to get vaccinated, versus 26% of Independents and just 3% of Democrats. In response to a more sharply worded KFF question, 23% of Republicans report that they will “definitely not” get vaccinated, compared to 11% of Independents and just 4% of Democrats.

Wouldn’t say 56% is most Republicans … But the group still has the lowest vaccination rate of any major American subgroup,

detbuch

01-19-2023, 03:00 PM

Wouldn’t say 56% is most Republicans …

Why not? And why does it matter? The vaccine doesn't prevent you from getting Covid, and it doesn't prevent you from transmitting it.

Jim in CT

01-19-2023, 03:45 PM

and the issue for many isn’t so much what’s on the laptop. It’s what the FBI and the media did to bury it right before the election

Jim keep moving the goal posts . That’s how a conspiracies works

1st it was the evidence is on the laptop. And it Would sink Biden’s campaign .. and no one took the bait.

Now it’s the the FBI hiding a story everyone read and was covered in multiple new sources .. helping a Democratic.. more deep state fantasy

I'm not moving the goalposts. I've said the media can be biased if they want, but the federal government can't be, or nothing works. Been saying that since day 1 on this.

It's worth knowing what's in the laptop, how much is true, if any laws were broken. You disagree that's worth knowing?

But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing compared to the FBI trying to influence the results of an election

That's not moving goal posts, nor is it whatabout-ism. It's common sense.

wdmso

01-19-2023, 04:46 PM

I'm not moving the goalposts. I've said the media can be biased if they want, but the federal government can't be, or nothing works. Been saying that since day 1 on this.

It's worth knowing what's in the laptop, how much is true, if any laws were broken. You disagree that's worth knowing?

But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing compared to the FBI trying to influence the results of an election

That's not moving goal posts, nor is it whatabout-ism. It's common sense.

Jim you can’t just find a laptop and suddenly accuse it’s owner of a crime. That may be how Republicans operate but that’s not how our legal systems operate to the dismay of your universe

But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing

Just this statement shows you don’t care about due process . You’re willing to investigate people and have them prove their innocence

Sorry not how it works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

01-19-2023, 05:26 PM

Jim you can’t just find a laptop and suddenly accuse it’s owner of a crime. That may be how Republicans operate but that’s not how our legal systems operate to the dismay of your universe

But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing

Just this statement shows you don’t care about due process . You’re willing to investigate people and have them prove their innocence

Sorry not how it works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim you can’t just find a laptop and suddenly accuse it’s owner of a crime. "

You accused Santos of a crime because someone you never heard of, accused him.

If someone's laptop has evidence of a crime, why can't you investigate them for that crime?

I'm not saying the Bidens committed a crime. But IF there's evidence of that on the laptop, why not investigate?

And how can it not bother you, that the FBI lied to all of us about it being Russian disinfomation? The FBI had the laptop in their possession, they'd have known in a day if it was phony or legit.

I'm not saying charge anyone with anything. But we should know what's on that laptop, and we should know what the FBI did, and why.

I wanted the Trump Russia investigation. I wanted to know what happened.

Similarly, I want to know what happened here. You seem afraid of finding out what happened. Gee, I wonder why?

The author I posted here, is someone who is respected by TIME magazine and Foxnews. So he's not a rabid partisan for either side. And he saw the documents that you and I haven't seen. And he said it's disturbing.

Let's have the hearings and find out the truth. If it's a nothingburger (and I hope it is), lets' declare that. If the Bidens or the FBI did anything wrong, let's find that out, too.

How long did we spend on the Trump Russia hoax? We can afford to spend a little energy here.

"But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing "

You're again exposed as a big fat liar. Because what I said was this:

"But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing compared to the FBI trying to influence the results of an election"

I didn't say the Bidens actions are "nothing". I said if they sold influence for money, that's nothing compared to our FBI working as operatives for the Democrat party. And it is, in fact, nothing compared to the federal government trying to influence an election.

"you don’t care about due process . You’re willing to investigate people and have them prove their innocence "

You've been eating low-IQ vitamins again, haven't you?

I want a hearing to find out the truth. That's exactly in keeping with due process.

YOU want to punish Santos based only on an allegation. THAT is contrary to due process. You wanted to punish Brett Kavanaugh based solely on an accusation (a ridiculous accusation). With Republicans, accused=guilty to you. You have shown us repeatedly that you believe exactly that.

You really, really stink at this.

You really humiliated yourself with that post. You deliberately cut off part of my sentence to make it look like I said something I never came close to saying, and people only do that when they know they can not respond to what was actually said. Then, you said that wanting an investigation is contrary to due process? That's exactly what due process is.

Shellenberger is a lifelong liberal. And he thinks we need to investigate the FBIs actions here.

But you know better. You, who are incapable of a nanosecond of impartiality.

Republican=bad, democrat=good, we get it already. And you call me a broken horse.

"not how it works"

Apparently it is how it works, because the hearings are coming.

Democrats HATE it when republicans play by the left's rules. You think only democrats are allowed to launch congressional hearings to attack their opponents? In what world does that make sense.

Nancy Pelosi kicked Republicans off house committees who she didn't like. That wasn't the way things were normally done, but that's what she did. And that was fine. So McCarthy did the same exact thing, and the left is going berserk, saying it's not fair.

To the left, "fair" means democrats fight with brass knuckles, republicans have to wear gloves. Trump put a stop to that.

wdmso

01-19-2023, 08:09 PM

"Jim you can’t just find a laptop and suddenly accuse it’s owner of a crime. "

You accused Santos of a crime because someone you never heard of, accused him.

If someone's laptop has evidence of a crime, why can't you investigate them for that crime?

I'm not saying the Bidens committed a crime. But IF there's evidence of that on the laptop, why not investigate?

And how can it not bother you, that the FBI lied to all of us about it being Russian disinfomation? The FBI had the laptop in their possession, they'd have known in a day if it was phony or legit.

I'm not saying charge anyone with anything. But we should know what's on that laptop, and we should know what the FBI did, and why.

I wanted the Trump Russia investigation. I wanted to know what happened.

Similarly, I want to know what happened here. You seem afraid of finding out what happened. Gee, I wonder why?

The author I posted here, is someone who is respected by TIME magazine and Foxnews. So he's not a rabid partisan for either side. And he saw the documents that you and I haven't seen. And he said it's disturbing.

Let's have the hearings and find out the truth. If it's a nothingburger (and I hope it is), lets' declare that. If the Bidens or the FBI did anything wrong, let's find that out, too.

How long did we spend on the Trump Russia hoax? We can afford to spend a little energy here.

"But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing "

You're again exposed as a big fat liar. Because what I said was this:

"But whether or not Joe and Hunter broke any laws, is nothing compared to the FBI trying to influence the results of an election"

I didn't say the Bidens actions are "nothing". I said if they sold influence for money, that's nothing compared to our FBI working as operatives for the Democrat party. And it is, in fact, nothing compared to the federal government trying to influence an election.

"you don’t care about due process . You’re willing to investigate people and have them prove their innocence "

You've been eating low-IQ vitamins again, haven't you?

I want a hearing to find out the truth. That's exactly in keeping with due process.

YOU want to punish Santos based only on an allegation. THAT is contrary to due process. You wanted to punish Brett Kavanaugh based solely on an accusation (a ridiculous accusation). With Republicans, accused=guilty to you. You have shown us repeatedly that you believe exactly that.

You really, really stink at this.

You really humiliated yourself with that post. You deliberately cut off part of my sentence to make it look like I said something I never came close to saying, and people only do that when they know they can not respond to what was actually said. Then, you said that wanting an investigation is contrary to due process? That's exactly what due process is.

Shellenberger is a lifelong liberal. And he thinks we need to investigate the FBIs actions here.

But you know better. You, who are incapable of a nanosecond of impartiality.

Republican=bad, democrat=good, we get it already. And you call me a broken horse.

"not how it works"

Apparently it is how it works, because the hearings are coming.

Democrats HATE it when republicans play by the left's rules. You think only democrats are allowed to launch congressional hearings to attack their opponents? In what world does that make sense.

Nancy Pelosi kicked Republicans off house committees who she didn't like. That wasn't the way things were normally done, but that's what she did. And that was fine. So McCarthy did the same exact thing, and the left is going berserk, saying it's not fair.

To the left, "fair" means democrats fight with brass knuckles, republicans have to wear gloves. Trump put a stop to that.

Just by you trying to use santos as a victim of liberals attacks and this peach of a statement To the left, "fair" means democrats fight with brass knuckles, republicans have to wear gloves. Trump put a stop to that. shows how much of a ultra MAGA cult member we all knew you to be :1poke:

Pete F.

01-19-2023, 09:43 PM

Jim thinks that the Democrats invented dirty tricks.
He’s missing Ken Clawson, Rod Shelly, Harry Dent, Lee Atwater, George Bush, the Brooks Brother riot, Cambridge Analytica.
Just ask Roger Stone.

He also thinks the Republican Party of Nassau County are liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

01-19-2023, 09:58 PM

Just by you trying to use santos as a victim of liberals attacks and this peach of a statement To the left, "fair" means democrats fight with brass knuckles, republicans have to wear gloves. Trump put a stop to that. shows how much of a ultra MAGA cult member we all knew you to be :1poke:

keep posting doctored quotes from
me wayne. stick with that. and keep
saying hat investigations of accusations, are contrary to due process. we should go right from accusation to sentencing, at least when the accused is a republican…

Got Stripers

01-20-2023, 08:16 AM

Jim in CT

01-20-2023, 09:05 AM

So let me understand the argument from the right. A warning about potentially erroneous information in a laptop of potentially questionable authenticity by the FBI, which potentially may have influence in an election is weaponizing the FBI for political reasons.

Yet in 2026 the FBI announces it will reopen the Hillary email investigation just ahead of the election, but I’m certain in the Jim and crappie man’s view that isn’t also weaponizing the FBI for the same political reasons by the timing of that announcement which did impact that election.

What’s the word for that, oh yeah hypocrisy.

The FBI was in possession of Hunter's laptop. They had the laptop.
It's the FBI. They knew it was legit, they knew it wasn't Russian disinformation. They lied to big tech, in order to suppress the story, and it's hard to believe the timing (right before the election) is a coincidence.

Here's another hypocrisy...the left spent a lot of time end energy, investigating the Trump Russia hoax. But they don't want to spend 2 seconds to see if the Bidens broke any laws, or if the FBI acted as agents of the democrat party.

"et in 2026 the FBI announces it will reopen the Hillary email investigation just ahead of the election"

Hilary mishandled the emails. Had she not chosen to do that, we wouldn't be talking about this. Her email handling should have been investigated right away, and thoroughly.

I'm not saying politics didn't play into that. And to whatever extent it did, that was wrong. But the FBI didn't fabricate the idea that she mishandled emails. The FBI did fabricate the idea that the laptop was russian disinformation. There was never any reason to believe that's what the laptop was. The obvious conclusion is that they did it to help the Biden campaign.

Elections have consequences Bob. You guys launched a politically-motivated investigation into Trump and Russia, based partly on the debunked Steele dossier. Now it's the right's turn. The laptop is legit. Only radicals liberals blind to truth are still denying that.

Democrats hate it when the republicans turn the tables and use their own tactics against them.

Senator Biden says the US Senate should refuse to allow a republican president to nominate a supreme court justice late in his second term, nobody questions it. When McConnell invokes the Biden Rule, it's a national horror.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi kicks Republicans she doesn't like, off their committees, breaking longstanding tradition that each side gets to pick who is on what committee. Kevin McCarthy does the same exact thing, and he's a weasel for doing so.

The democrats launch a massive investigation into Trump and Russia, that was their civic duty. The GOP wants to do the same exact thing to Biden, and they're awful for doing so.

It's only OK when democrats do it!!

Got Stripers

01-20-2023, 09:28 AM

wdmso

01-20-2023, 09:39 AM

keep posting doctored quotes from
me wayne. stick with that. and keep
saying hat investigations of accusations, are contrary to due process. we should go right from accusation to sentencing, at least when the accused is a republican…

nothings doctored your entire quote is still here .. and your meaning hasn't changed either .

you want Hunter and Biden investigated because you were lead to and believe they COMMITTED A CRIME but have no evidence to prove it what crimes were committed

you've got a feeling .. that seems to be Republicans evidence where was this feeling when Trump Had his children in his inner circle when They got their fast track pattens in china or Jareds 2 Billion dollar deal or In 2019, Donald Jr. and Guilfoyle jointly toured campuses, invited by venues such as the University of Florida, where they were paid $50,000 from student fees for their appearance.

All making money off Daddy but But hunter can't do that

wdmso

01-20-2023, 09:54 AM

They knew it was legit, they knew it wasn't Russian disinformation. They lied to big tech, in order to suppress the story, and it's hard to believe the timing (right before the election) is a coincidence.

Jims evidence stuff released by MUSK in tweets which have character limits of 280 and a Tucker carlson regular who speciality is environmental issues

You guys launched a politically-motivated investigation into Trump and Russia, based partly on the debunked Steele dossier.

one of jim's favorite hills to stand on

Jim ignores Trump trying to extort information from ukraine to use against Biden .. the 2nd time Trump asked a foreign country for assistance in an election

Ignorers Jan6th and all its testimonies and video evidence trump sitting on his hands for 3 plus hours and everything after with the orbit of pluto ..

Jims waiting with great enthusiasm For kevin to release all the hours of footage of Jan 6th .. so he can find show us all they were let in and it was antifa

wdmso

01-20-2023, 09:57 AM

The Special Counsel indicted 34 people—seven U.S. nationals, 26 Russian nationals, and one Dutch national—and three Russian organizations. Now that's a hoax for sure Jim, keep that foil hat tight, otherwise your going to loose brain matter you can ill afford to loose.

this goes back to Jim and others logic since they didn't tie Trump directly it never happened

and they always leave this statement out

Mueller wrote. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

spence

01-20-2023, 01:18 PM

The FBI was in possession of Hunter's laptop. They had the laptop.
It's the FBI. They knew it was legit, they knew it wasn't Russian disinformation. They lied to big tech, in order to suppress the story, and it's hard to believe the timing (right before the election) is a coincidence.
There’s no real evidence the FBI misled anyone. Hunter had already been under investigation for several years which wasn’t disclosed. From the sworn testimony it looks like the FBI’s interest in a Russian hack and leak was 1) they did it en masse to help trump in 2016 and 2) they believed that Russia hacked Burisma when Hunter was there and they would use that in a similar manner. #dupedagain

Also, common sense. You have hundreds of right wing sites you know are going to run with the story. There’s no way the FBI could put a lid on it.

detbuch

01-20-2023, 01:49 PM

and they always leave this statement out

Mueller wrote. “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

What Mueller wrote should indicate to you, that the purpose of the investigation is to make a conclusion. In order to make a conclusion, there must be substantial unequivocal evidence. If there is not such evidence, there is, at least in law, a presumption of innocence. If there is not sufficient evidence to indict, the matter is over for the counsel. There is no need for any comment on exoneration. That merely muddies the investigation and its purpose.

When there was not enough evidence to indict Trump for conspiracy, that was not "exoneration". It was the CONCLUSION that Trump was not indictable. He might, in reality, have committed the crime, but if that can't be proven, the matter is over. By law, Trump is presumed innocent. But if you want to feel, or think, or have the opinion, that he is guilty, that's your prerogative.

As for obstruction, the duty and process for Mueller is the same. He could not find unequivocal evidence that Trump could be indicted for obstruction. It wasn't his duty to "exonerate," it was his job to CONCLUDE if Trump was indictable. He couldn't.

detbuch

01-20-2023, 01:53 PM

Jim in CT

01-20-2023, 02:11 PM

There’s no real evidence the FBI misled anyone. Hunter had already been under investigation for several years which wasn’t disclosed. From the sworn testimony it looks like the FBI’s interest in a Russian hack and leak was 1) they did it en masse to help trump in 2016 and 2) they believed that Russia hacked Burisma when Hunter was there and they would use that in a similar manner. #dupedagain

Also, common sense. You have hundreds of right wing sites you know are going to run with the story. There’s no way the FBI could put a lid on it.

THe FBI had the laptop in its possession. The FBI knew whether or not it was a Russian hoax. What evidence did the FBI have, that it was russian disinformation.

getting fritter and facebook to bam something, is putting a lid on it. That’s where people are, his help them.

Der ich previously posted testimony from the Roth guy from twitter, he claims the fbi specifically mentioned the laptop. So if the FBI had no reason to believe the laptop was russian disinformation, but they told twitter and facebook it was, that’s misleading.

common sense

The author i posted is respected by both TIME magazine ( who called him “a hero of the environment”) and Foxnews. He saw the twitter files and says it’s disturbing.

You’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan who hasn’t seen what he has seen. Tell me why you’re more reliable than he is on this.

Pete F.

01-20-2023, 02:16 PM

THe FBI had the laptop in its possession. The FBI knew whether or not it was a Russian hoax. What evidence did the FBI have, that it was russian disinformation.

getting fritter and facebook to bam something, is putting a lid on it. That’s where people are, his help them.

Der ich previously posted testimony from the Roth guy from twitter, he claims the fbi specifically mentioned the laptop. So if the FBI had no reason to believe the laptop was russian disinformation, but they told twitter and facebook it was, that’s misleading.

common sense

The author i posted is respected by both TIME magazine ( who called him “a hero of the environment”) and Foxnews. He saw the twitter files and says it’s disturbing.

You’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan who hasn’t seen what he has seen. Tell me why you’re more reliable than he is on this.

Because you’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers

01-20-2023, 02:38 PM

What Mueller wrote should indicate to you, that the purpose of the investigation is to make a conclusion. In order to make a conclusion, there must be substantial unequivocal evidence. If there is not such evidence, there is, at least in law, a presumption of innocence. If there is not sufficient evidence to indict, the matter is over for the counsel. There is no need for any comment on exoneration. That merely muddies the investigation and its purpose.

When there was not enough evidence to indict Trump for conspiracy, that was not "exoneration". It was the CONCLUSION that Trump was not indictable. He might, in reality, have committed the crime, but if that can't be proven, the matter is over. By law, Trump is presumed innocent. But if you want to feel, or think, or have the opinion, that he is guilty, that's your prerogative.

As for obstruction, the duty and process for Mueller is the same. He could not find unequivocal evidence that Trump could be indicted for obstruction. It wasn't his duty to "exonerate," it was his job to CONCLUDE if Trump was indictable. He couldn't.

Has nothing to do with the DOJ's position on not indicting a sitting president, nah no nah nothing.
\

detbuch

01-20-2023, 04:07 PM

Has nothing to do with the DOJ's position on not indicting a sitting president, nah no nah nothing.
\

Not really. If the special counsel cannot indict a sitting president, then there would be no reason to appoint one. And if there were unequivocal evidence to indict or prosecute, that could be stated so in the report as it was stated in vol. 1 regarding conspiracy where it was stated that there was insufficient evidence. The examples of possible obstruction in vol. 2 were not unequivocal, but could mean other than obstruction, as, I believe, Mueller stated. Therefor they could not be grounds for indictment.

If the Counsel can state insufficient, he can state sufficient, even if the DOJ policy denies him the ability to indict. Otherwise, what's the point of investigating obstruction. He can conclude, that is the point of a special counsel investigation. Leaving it up in the air is the same as saying it wasn't the responsibility of the special counsel to begin with. And throwing in the "cannot exonerate" bit is not only inconclusive, it is irresponsible, it is an example of creating an air of guilt without having to actually demonstrate guilt--which can, rightly, be perceived as a political "conclusion" rather than a legal one. Or, as another incidence of "deep state" influence or interference on government policy and or on public perception.

spence

01-20-2023, 04:36 PM

THe FBI had the laptop in its possession. The FBI knew whether or not it was a Russian hoax. What evidence did the FBI have, that it was russian disinformation.

getting fritter and facebook to bam something, is putting a lid on it. That’s where people are, his help them.

Der ich previously posted testimony from the Roth guy from twitter, he claims the fbi specifically mentioned the laptop. So if the FBI had no reason to believe the laptop was russian disinformation, but they told twitter and facebook it was, that’s misleading.

common sense

The author i posted is respected by both TIME magazine ( who called him “a hero of the environment”) and Foxnews. He saw the twitter files and says it’s disturbing.

You’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan who hasn’t seen what he has seen. Tell me why you’re more reliable than he is on this.
You’re not paying attention, and Roth said no such thing that I’ve seen.

detbuch

01-20-2023, 04:39 PM

Because you’re a completely, rabidly blind partisan.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did you believe, or think, or feel, when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear the laptop was Russian mis or dis information?

detbuch

01-20-2023, 04:40 PM

You’re not paying attention, and Roth said no such thing that I’ve seen.

What did you believe, or think, or feel, when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear the laptop was Russian mis or dis information?

Pete F.

01-20-2023, 05:43 PM

The real story about Hunter Biden is that the current president hasn't fired the FBI director, called it a hoax, or tried to obstruct the investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-20-2023, 06:08 PM

The real story about Hunter Biden is that the current president hasn't fired the FBI director, called it a hoax, or tried to obstruct the investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did you believe, or think, or feel, when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear the laptop was Russian mis or dis information?

Pete F.

01-20-2023, 06:22 PM

What did you believe, or think, or feel, when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear the laptop was Russian mis or dis information?

Well, for one, just look at what happened after Hunter Biden left the White House. The Saudis, who claimed they had him in their pocket, gave him $2 billion. No, wait, that was Jared Kushner. Never mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-20-2023, 06:26 PM

Well, for one, just look at what happened after Hunter Biden left the White House. The Saudis, who claimed they had him in their pocket, gave him $2 billion. No, wait, that was Jared Kushner. Never mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did you believe, or think, or feel, about the laptop when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear that it was Russian mis or dis information?

Pete F.

01-20-2023, 06:42 PM

What did you believe, or think, or feel, about the laptop when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear that it was Russian mis or dis information?

Isn’t that the one Ghouliani and Bannon had?
I’d assume it’s as good as their evidence of election fraud.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-20-2023, 06:49 PM

Isn’t that the one Ghouliani and Bannon had?
I’d assume it’s as good as their evidence of election fraud.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did you believe, or think, or feel, about Hunters laptop when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear that it was Russian mis or dis information?

Pete F.

01-20-2023, 07:47 PM

What did you believe, or think, or feel, about Hunters laptop when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear that it was Russian mis or dis information?

It wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
There's a lot of wild stuff that came out in the whole Trump-Russia saga, but I still can't get over how there's an email chain that literally says, "this is part of Russia and it's govt's support for Mr. Trump" and the son of the pres. replies, "if it's what you say I love it."

I think Trump would have given Putin Ukraine for it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-20-2023, 08:26 PM

It wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
There's a lot of wild stuff that came out in the whole Trump-Russia saga, but I still can't get over how there's an email chain that literally says, "this is part of Russia and it's govt's support for Mr. Trump" and the son of the pres. replies, "if it's what you say I love it."

I think Trump would have given Putin Ukraine for it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure how to parse all that in relation to my question. Are you saying that the framing of the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation influenced you into believing that it was?

wdmso

01-21-2023, 11:07 AM

Jim in CT

01-21-2023, 11:29 AM

Hey all you computer geniuses, the physical laptop could be hunters, but the chain of custody there is no way that you can prove that the original hard drive hadn’t been replaced because they’re replaceable. Or re written

So yes the actual laptop the body screen key board could be hunters tracked by serial number and Apple ID.
But it all comes down to the hard drive and a court would be hard to accept anything on it. as probable cause to start an investigation or accept as evidence

A House committee are not bound by the rules of evidence and the GOPQ have no regard for evidence anyway or power to prosecute. Show it will be all in the window and rumors.

The investigation into Hunter Biden began in 2018, Unrelated to his laptop But for taxes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

im guessing the fbi can tell if it’s the original hard drive. but on top
of everything else, now you’re a tech expert.

First, you said everything on the laptop was harmless, not i docstuve of any wrongdoing. Are you saying. Hunters political
opponents replaced the hard drive with one that had nothing incriminating?

WDMSO: there’s nothing incriminating on the laptop. And if there is, the GOP put it there!!

wayne, take off the to. foil hat for one second and think. consider what you know about hunter biden. Would it really be surprising to you, if he did things he wasn’t supposed to, for millions of dollars?

you’re taking talking points from Joy Behar now?

detbuch

01-21-2023, 01:02 PM

Pete F.

01-21-2023, 01:09 PM

Not sure how to parse all that in relation to my question. Are you saying that the framing of the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation influenced you into believing that it was?

No, I’m saying the Trump organization’s history of working with Russia did.
The Russian oligarchy made Donald Trump.
I believe Trump’s not only a 5-decade Russian asset,he married his 1st of 2 Soviet-born brides in 1977,at which time the KGB opened a file on him and that’d be when they started compiling Kompromat,like the “golden showers” thing and funneling money to him to launder. It’s probably not only true,but far worse than we know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

01-21-2023, 02:09 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/21/how-hunter-biden-conspiracy-theory-grew-lone-tweet-big-megaphone

How a Hunter Biden conspiracy theory grew, from lone tweet to a big megaphone
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

01-21-2023, 02:10 PM

Did you believe, or think, or feel, that Hunters laptop content was Russian disinformation when the media cited intelligence sources that made it appear that it was?

Hunters laptop content was Russian disinformation Makes some sense haven’t seen anything yet to disprove that possibility

There’s no intelligence source who specifically said the laptop was Russian disinformation.

The memo to all social media companies was look out for the possibility of Russian disinformation

Still waiting on what you feel is on the hard drive and what will it prove

You should read the article I linked
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-21-2023, 02:24 PM

No, I’m saying the Trump organization’s history of working with Russia did.
The Russian oligarchy made Donald Trump.
I believe Trump’s not only a 5-decade Russian asset,he married his 1st of 2 Soviet-born brides in 1977,at which time the KGB opened a file on him and that’d be when they started compiling Kompromat,like the “golden showers” thing and funneling money to him to launder. It’s probably not only true,but far worse than we know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you saying that Inteligence characterizing the laptop as Russian disinformation had no influence on your believing it? That the first thing that came to your mind when the story was released and before intel saying it was, was that it was "Russian disinformation"? And that your notions of various circumstances that were suggestive to you and for you were probable was what convinced you, whether or not the lap top story was characterized as Russian disinformation by Intel?

Does that "suggest" to you that, just maybe, since all your notions about Trump and Russia proved to be wrong in regard to the laptop, and proved to be unprovable or just wrong about stuff for which Mueller could not find sufficient evidence, that maybe you shouldn't be so certain about Trump being some sort of Russian agent. And that Intel was either lying, or not so smart or reliable? That all your railings against Trump might be some degree of over the top?

wdmso

01-21-2023, 02:27 PM

im guessing the fbi can tell if it’s the original hard drive. but on top
of everything else, now you’re a tech expert.

First, you said everything on the laptop was harmless, not i docstuve of any wrongdoing. Are you saying. Hunters political
opponents replaced the hard drive with one that had nothing incriminating?

WDMSO: there’s nothing incriminating on the laptop. And if there is, the GOP put it there!!

wayne, take off the to. foil hat for one second and think. consider what you know about hunter biden. Would it really be surprising to you, if he did things he wasn’t supposed to, for millions of dollars?

you’re taking talking points from Joy Behar now?

WDMSO: there’s nothing incriminating on the laptop. And if there is, the GOP put it there!!

Sorry Jim no tinfoil hat seems again you’re unabashedly think Rudy would never do such a think. And please keep ignoring the law. If there was a criminal activity to be found Rudy and the gop contaminated the entire crime scene.
If you had any Common sense you’d understand that . And making money off your family name isn’t a crime ..
not paying your taxes is . funny the gop claims the irs is coming for your money so we must defund them.

Yet the only credible crime hunter may have committed is tax fraud.

Maybe the IRS shouldn’t investigate Hunter by gop standards
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

01-21-2023, 03:21 PM

Are you saying that Inteligence characterizing the laptop as Russian disinformation had no influence on your believing it? That the first thing that came to your mind when the story was released and before intel saying it was, was that it was "Russian disinformation"? And that your notions of various circumstances that were suggestive to you and for you were probable was what convinced you, whether or not the lap top story was characterized as Russian disinformation by Intel?

Does that "suggest" to you that, just maybe, since all your notions about Trump and Russia proved to be wrong in regard to the laptop, and proved to be unprovable or just wrong about stuff for which Mueller could not find sufficient evidence, that maybe you shouldn't be so certain about Trump being some sort of Russian agent. And that Intel was either lying, or not so smart or reliable? That all your railings against Trump might be some degree of over the top?

Trump was involved with Russia long before he was a politician.
Mueller did not investigate Trumps finances.

Donald Trump asked for help from Russia. Putin obliged him with the stolen emails.

Then Trump used that help every single day in the final month, knowing it was Russian help. It was the focus of his campaign.

How is this not a criminal conspiracy?

So now you believe the tale fed to Matt Taibbi by Elon Musk

And claim Democrats & the media manufactured the Trump/Russia scandal

Or read the GOP CONTROLLED SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT

Which details a conspiracy between a Russian intelligence officer & Trump campaign chairman Manafort

Or the fact that Robert Mueller found that Paul Manafort had been repeatedly tampered with by Trump agents so that he wouldn’t reveal any information to the FBI about Trump, and that in compensation for this Trump gave him a presidential pardon in full view of the American public?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

01-21-2023, 04:39 PM

WDMSO: there’s nothing incriminating on the laptop. And if there is, the GOP put it there!!

Sorry Jim no tinfoil hat seems again you’re unabashedly think Rudy would never do such a think. And please keep ignoring the law. If there was a criminal activity to be found Rudy and the gop contaminated the entire crime scene.
If you had any Common sense you’d understand that . And making money off your family name isn’t a crime ..
not paying your taxes is . funny the gop claims the irs is coming for your money so we must defund them.

Yet the only credible crime hunter may have committed is tax fraud.

Maybe the IRS shouldn’t investigate Hunter by gop standards
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not saying the GOP would never stoop to that ..i’m saying we’d know if they did

The FBI had the laptop for a long time. THEY had it. And they aren’t saying it was tampered with

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it was tampered with?

You desperately hope it was tampered with. That doesn’t mean it was.

you’re scared, and it’s showing. The laptop, the classified documents debacle, and a very possible/probable recession coming. i get why you’re scared, i do. It’ll be OK.

making money off your family name isn’t necessarily a crime. but it obviously might be. depends on what was done. And again, i’m more concerned with why the FBI thought it was their job to lie about the laptop being russian information, just before the election. One reasonable explanation would be that they wanted to help Biden. I can’t think of another explanation, maybe there is one. Hopefully the hearings will illuminate that. f there is i fence to suggest it was russian disinformation, no one has shared that. it appears the FBI made that up. And again, they had the laptop when they made that claim. They’d therefore know. Today, the FBI isn’t saying the laptop was planted by russians, nor are they saying it was tampered with.

If chain of custody principles were trampled to prevent a prosecution, i’d still like to know what happened, so would many others

Those hearings are coming.

detbuch

01-21-2023, 04:49 PM

Hunters laptop content was Russian disinformation Makes some sense haven’t seen anything yet to disprove that possibility

Why does it make sense if there is no proof that it is? And several of its emails have been verified by forensic experts. And early on, the DOJ said it was not Russian Disinformation.

There’s no intelligence source who specifically said the laptop was Russian disinformation.

I didn't say Intel specifically said it was, but that it characterized it as such, i.e. had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation. Which effectively cripples it--actually serves to "debunk" it in the eyes of many.

he memo to all social media companies was look out for the possibility of Russian disinformation

And it was known by those who wrote the memo that the laptop story was about to be broken, so the news media, and social media were primed by them to view it as Russian disinformation. And so treated it as such, either debunking it or suppressing it. The release of the Twitter files has shown how it was primed to block it.

Still waiting on what you feel is on the hard drive and what will it prove

I have no feelings about what is on the Hard drive. I was not even disgusted with the supposedly disturbing photos on it.

You should read the article I linked
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did. It stated that several of the emails were verified, and some, including banking transactions and connection with Ukraine corruption.

But my question to you, was what did you believe, think, or feel about the story when it was characterized by various intel people and your favorite, or preferred media, as Russian disinformation. What effect, at the time when that happened did it have on your view of the story?

detbuch

01-21-2023, 04:58 PM

Trump was involved with Russia long before he was a politician.
Mueller did not investigate Trumps finances.

Donald Trump asked for help from Russia. Putin obliged him with the stolen emails.

Then Trump used that help every single day in the final month, knowing it was Russian help. It was the focus of his campaign.

How is this not a criminal conspiracy?

So now you believe the tale fed to Matt Taibbi by Elon Musk

And claim Democrats & the media manufactured the Trump/Russia scandal

Or read the GOP CONTROLLED SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT

Which details a conspiracy between a Russian intelligence officer & Trump campaign chairman Manafort

Or the fact that Robert Mueller found that Paul Manafort had been repeatedly tampered with by Trump agents so that he wouldn’t reveal any information to the FBI about Trump, and that in compensation for this Trump gave him a presidential pardon in full view of the American public?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You'll have to ask Mueller about all those things. Apparently, he did not view them the same way you do. I wanted to know what effect the Intel characterization of the Hunter emails as Russian disinformation have on your view of them.

Jim in CT

01-21-2023, 05:54 PM

Hunters laptop content was Russian disinformation Makes some sense haven’t seen anything yet to disprove that possibility

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how about the fact that today, twitter and facebook and cbs have all said it’s a legit laptop? Is the FBI claiming that the laptop is in any way, a product of russian disinformation? is anyone other than you, still making that claim?

wayne, have you seen any evidence to support the idea that it’s russian disinformation?

wdmso

01-21-2023, 05:56 PM

how about the fact that today, twitter and facebook and cbs have all said it’s a legit laptop? Is the FBI claiming that the laptop is in any way, a product of russian disinformation? is anyone other than you, still making that claim?

wayne, have you seen any evidence to support the idea that it’s russian disinformation?

Guessed you missed the whole part that laptop hard drives can be removed and replaced :huh:

wdmso

01-21-2023, 05:58 PM

I did. It stated that several of the emails were verified, and some, including banking transactions and connection with Ukraine corruption.

But my question to you, was what did you believe, think, or feel about the story when it was characterized by various intel people and your favorite, or preferred media, as Russian disinformation. What effect, at the time when that happened did it have on your view of the story?

And it was known by those who wrote the memo

Did that conclusion come with a roll of tinfoil ? Because we know it’s not based on evidence

wdmso

01-21-2023, 06:12 PM

i’m not saying the GOP would never stoop to that ..i’m saying we’d know if they did

The FBI had the laptop for a long time. THEY had it. And they aren’t saying it was tampered with

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it was tampered with?

You desperately hope it was tampered with. That doesn’t mean it was.

you’re scared, and it’s showing. The laptop, the classified documents debacle, and a very possible/probable recession coming. i get why you’re scared, i do. It’ll be OK.

making money off your family name isn’t necessarily a crime. but it obviously might be. depends on what was done. And again, i’m more concerned with why the FBI thought it was their job to lie about the laptop being russian information, just before the election. One reasonable explanation would be that they wanted to help Biden. I can’t think of another explanation, maybe there is one. Hopefully the hearings will illuminate that. f there is i fence to suggest it was russian disinformation, no one has shared that. it appears the FBI made that up. And again, they had the laptop when they made that claim. They’d therefore know. Today, the FBI isn’t saying the laptop was planted by russians, nor are they saying it was tampered with.

If chain of custody principles were trampled to prevent a prosecution, i’d still like to know what happened, so would many others

Those hearings are coming.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it was tampered with?

You desperately hope it was tampered with. That doesn’t mean it was.

Jim you don’t need to prove it was tampered with all they need to prove is Rudy had possession of the laptop.. game over inadmissible in court

House hearings won’t change that . They have no law enforcement authority

If chain of custody principles were trampled to prevent a prosecution, i’d still like to know what happened, so would many others

Still don’t get it. Do you? chain of custody principles were trampled by Rudy and the gop operatives who thought they could influence the election with what they thought was a smoking gun ..

Only the MAGA horde want to know what happened hell their still waiting on the Durham report to save them. You still waiting With them?

And your expecting a party who allowed Greene 9/11 truther who has history of embracing far-right conspiracies on the homeland security committee

To be trusted by the American people . You’re crazy

Jim in CT

01-21-2023, 06:21 PM

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it was tampered with?

You desperately hope it was tampered with. That doesn’t mean it was.

Jim you don’t need to prove it was tampered with all they need to prove is Rudy had possession of the laptop.. game over inadmissible in court

House hearings won’t change that . They have no law enforcement authority

If chain of custody principles were trampled to prevent a prosecution, i’d still like to know what happened, so would many others

Still don’t get it. Do you? chain of custody principles were trampled by Rudy and the gop operatives who thought they could influence the election with what they thought was a smoking gun ..

Only the MAGA horde want to know what happened hell their still waiting on the Durham report to save them. You still waiting With them?

And your expecting a party who allowed Greene 9/11 truther who has history of embracing far-right conspiracies on the homeland security committee

To be trusted by the American people . You’re crazy

and democrats out Eric Swalwell, he who sleeps with Chinese spies, on the house i telling everyone committee. that’s more trustworthy?

You’re in a glass house wayne.

the republicans won’t be testifying. just calling witnesses and asking questions.

The Dad Fisherman

01-21-2023, 06:37 PM

Guessed you missed the whole part that laptop hard drives can be removed and replaced :huh:

Because the Computer Forensic Professionals always get stymied by that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

01-21-2023, 06:40 PM

Because the Computer Forensic Professionals always get stymied by that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right, the FBI, who had the laptop, would have no way of knowing if that had happened.

Pete F.

01-21-2023, 07:06 PM

You'll have to ask Mueller about all those things. Apparently, he did not view them the same way you do. I wanted to know what effect the Intel characterization of the Hunter emails as Russian disinformation have on your view of them.
Mueller did what he was told to do, within parameters set by others.
He was not told to let the evidence lead the investigation and DOJ regulations also restricted his investigation.
That’s a lot different than what you think should happen with this citizens laptop.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-21-2023, 07:10 PM

And it was known by those who wrote the memo

Did that conclusion come with a roll of tinfoil ? Because we know it’s not based on evidence

The evidence that the FBI knew in advance that the NYP post story on the Hunter lap top was going to be reported is revealed in the Twitter Files that have been released. Perhaps, most likely, you didn't watch the video I posted. But you do want me to read what you post.

detbuch

01-21-2023, 07:15 PM

Mueller did what he was told to do, within parameters set by others.
He was not told to let the evidence lead the investigation and DOJ regulations also restricted his investigation.
That’s a lot different than what you think should happen with this citizens laptop.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We were told that he did a thorough investigation and he said that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russ to influence the election--in contrasts to your vague, insufficient verbiage.

And I have not said what I think should happen with the laptop. I absorb information, and spread it when appropriate.

Pete F.

01-21-2023, 08:13 PM

We were told that he did a thorough investigation and he said that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russ to influence the election--in contrasts to your vague, insufficient verbiage.

And I have not said what I think should happen with the laptop. I absorb information, and spread it when appropriate.

No, your statement about Mueller is incorrect.

Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III Makes Statement on Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election
Washington, DC ~ Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office.

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.

I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.

These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.

The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

01-21-2023, 09:10 PM

and democrats out Eric Swalwell, he who sleeps with Chinese spies, on the house i telling everyone committee. that’s more trustworthy?

You’re in a glass house wayne.

the republicans won’t be testifying. just calling witnesses and asking questions.

Jim moving the goal post again how predictable

with an alleged Chinese spy, Christine Fang Jim still figuring out what alleged means

And Swalwell cut all his ties to Fang after he was alerted by the FBI to the investigation, according to Axios, and there is no publicly available evidence Swalwell knew or suspected Fang was working for Beijing, nor is there evidence Fang broke any laws through her fundraising.

Jim being his usual Intellectually, dishonest, Self

detbuch

01-21-2023, 09:13 PM

No, your statement about Mueller is incorrect.

Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III Makes Statement on Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election
Washington, DC ~ Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office . . .

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

I said that "he said that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the election"

Mueller said that "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

Pete F.

01-21-2023, 10:39 PM

I said that "he said that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the election"

Mueller said that "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

And the second volume is the evidence of obstruction to the investigation that prevented them from obtaining that evidence.
Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-22-2023, 06:30 PM

And the second volume is the evidence of obstruction to the investigation that prevented them from obtaining that evidence.
Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller said, about vol. 2 "we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime" because of Dept. policy. If that were the case, then why did he reach a determination in vol. 1?

And it was not the purpose of his investigation to formally charge, but to gather evidence and make a conclusion, "one way or the other" and submit his findings to the DOJ. Which he did (except for a conclusion in vol. II), and the DOJ submitted its conclusion on the Mueller report to the AG in a memorandum

(MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - THROUGH: THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY amend FROM: Steven A. Engel C5 Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel Edward C. O'Callaghan Principal Associate Deputy Attomey General SUBJECT: Review of the Special Counsel's Report)

in which they made the decision that "the evidence described in vol II of the report is not, in our judgment, sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes."

Pete F.

01-22-2023, 07:17 PM

Mueller said, about vol. 2 "we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime" because of Dept. policy. If that were the case, then why did he reach a determination in vol. 1?

And it was not the purpose of his investigation to formally charge, but to gather evidence and make a conclusion, "one way or the other" and submit his findings to the DOJ. Which he did (except for a conclusion in vol. II), and the DOJ submitted its conclusion on the Mueller report to the AG in a memorandum

(MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - THROUGH: THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY amend FROM: Steven A. Engel C5 Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel Edward C. O'Callaghan Principal Associate Deputy Attomey General SUBJECT: Review of the Special Counsel's Report)

in which they made the decision that "the evidence described in vol II of the report is not, in our judgment, sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes."

Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-22-2023, 07:25 PM

Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hence? No indictment requires pardons?

Pete F.

01-23-2023, 10:50 AM

Hence? No indictment requires pardons?

Why were Manafort, Stone and Flynn pardoned?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-23-2023, 11:29 AM

Hence the pardons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your response (to the DOJ review of Mueller's 10 instances of possible Trump obstruction found, in their judgment, that they were not sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes) "hence the pardons" makes no sense.

detbuch

01-23-2023, 11:39 AM

Why were Manafort, Stone and Flynn pardoned?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think it was because the DOJ review of Mueller's 10 instances of possible Trump obstruction found, in their judgment, that they were not sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes.

Pete F.

01-23-2023, 01:00 PM

I don't think it was because the DOJ review of Mueller's 10 instances of possible Trump obstruction found, in their judgment, that they were not sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes.

Back in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention was drafting the part of the Constitution that would soon become the presidential pardon power, Mason unequivocally opposed the provision. The president, he said, “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”
But that’s about it. Everything else about these pardons, including the incentive they give the president’s allies to withhold evidence of criminality, is, unfortunately, within the anticipated scope of the pardon power. Indeed, the Constitutional Convention, having heard and rejected Mason’s prediction, can reasonably be said to have accepted the possibility of pardon abuse as the collateral cost of having a pardon power in the first place.

And why exactly would the delegates have done that? Why did they disregard Mason’s prediction? In the end, his concerns were rejected by his fellow convention delegates because, in their judgment, there were adequate remedies for that type of presidential misbehavior. As James Madison put it: “There is one security in this case [of misused pardons] to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him [with a pardon], the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”

And there you have it. George Mason was prescient. James Madison—tragically, it turns out—was naive. The most insidious damage to American norms from Trump’s pardon extravaganza stems not from the extravaganza itself, though that is bad enough. Rather the damage to our democracy comes, most clearly, from the supine, almost sycophantic nature of Congress’s response to the Trump presidency since the start, both with regard to his abuse of the pardon power and his excesses more generally. Madison saw Congress as a powerful guard dog capable of preventing executive misconduct. Instead, in terms of pardon abuse, as with so many other instances of Trump’s overreach, it has proved little more than a lapdog.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/problem-pardons-was-clear-start/617397/
[i]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-23-2023, 04:21 PM

Back in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention was drafting the part of the Constitution that would soon become the presidential pardon power, Mason unequivocally opposed the provision. The president, he said, “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic. If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”

Manafort and Flynn were indicted, one was convicted.
Plenty of inquiry was made about them and the charges against them.

But that’s about it. Everything else about these pardons, including the incentive they give the president’s allies to withhold evidence of criminality, is, unfortunately, within the anticipated scope of the pardon power. Indeed, the Constitutional Convention, having heard and rejected Mason’s prediction, can reasonably be said to have accepted the possibility of pardon abuse as the collateral cost of having a pardon power in the first place.

And why exactly would the delegates have done that? Why did they disregard Mason’s prediction? In the end, his concerns were rejected by his fellow convention delegates because, in their judgment, there were adequate remedies for that type of presidential misbehavior. As James Madison put it: “There is one security in this case [of misused pardons] to which the gentlemen not have adverted: If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him [with a pardon], the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”

And there you have it. George Mason was prescient. James Madison—tragically, it turns out—was naive. The most insidious damage to American norms from Trump’s pardon extravaganza stems not from the extravaganza itself, though that is bad enough. Rather the damage to our democracy comes, most clearly, from the supine, almost sycophantic nature of Congress’s response to the Trump presidency since the start, both with regard to his abuse of the pardon power and his excesses more generally.

As was done with Presidents before Trump, like Clinton, for instance. Actually Trump was investigated by a not "supine" or "sycophantic" Congress, but by an energetic, determined, and politicized Congress, more than Clinton was, or more than many if not most Presidents.

Madison saw Congress as a powerful guard dog capable of preventing executive misconduct. Instead, in terms of pardon abuse, as with so many other instances of Trump’s overreach, it has proved little more than a lapdog.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/problem-pardons-was-clear-start/617397/
[i]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here we go with Pete's every now and then nod to the Constitution when he thinks it suits his purpose. What a crock. He advocates censorship of speech, getting rid of the electoral college, prefers federal policies that usurp the constitutional power of the states, prefers centralized government over localized government, is in favor of ideologies such as Progressivism, CRT, various Postmodernist concepts, that are antithetical to the Constitution.

He is not really a friend of the Constitution, unless he thinks he can squeeze something out of it that can put some narrative of his in a favorable light.

Progressivism has been the real and constant force that has gutted much of the Constitution, and has transformed much of the rest by its Progressive notions on how it is to be interpreted. And the Progressives have openly stated that it is not a functioning guide for our modern society, and, indeed, should entirely, or mostly be scrapped.

This all has been going on well before Trump. It may be convenient to vilify and destroy him as the villain that has destroyed the Constitution and the Congress. But that is absurd. The Progressve Congresses, and Presidents, and Judges were responsible for that, not Trump, regardless of what you think of him as a person.

And your response that "hence," the fact that the DOJ did not find that Mueller's 10 points of possible Trump obstruction were sufficient to violate obstruction statutes, was not the reason why Trump pardoned Manafort and Flynn. There were actually strong cases, especially for Flynn, to be made for the pardons. Not the least of which that they, especially Flynn, were implicated by a wrongful attempt to bring down the President.

And those attempts to bring down the President were as harmful to "our democracy" as what you want to blame Trump for.

Pete F.

01-23-2023, 06:37 PM

Here we go with Pete's every now and then nod to the Constitution when he thinks it suits his purpose. What a crock. He advocates censorship of speech, getting rid of the electoral college, prefers federal policies that usurp the constitutional power of the states, prefers centralized government over localized government, is in favor of ideologies such as Progressivism, CRT, various Postmodernist concepts, that are antithetical to the Constitution.

He is not really a friend of the Constitution, unless he thinks he can squeeze something out of it that can put some narrative of his in a favorable light.

Progressivism has been the real and constant force that has gutted much of the Constitution, and has transformed much of the rest by its Progressive notions on how it is to be interpreted. And the Progressives have openly stated that it is not a functioning guide for our modern society, and, indeed, should entirely, or mostly be scrapped.

This all has been going on well before Trump. It may be convenient to vilify and destroy him as the villain that has destroyed the Constitution and the Congress. But that is absurd. The Progressve Congresses, and Presidents, and Judges were responsible for that, not Trump, regardless of what you think of him as a person.

And your response that "hence," the fact that the DOJ did not find that Mueller's 10 points of possible Trump obstruction were sufficient to violate obstruction statutes, was not the reason why Trump pardoned Manafort and Flynn. There were actually strong cases, especially for Flynn, to be made for the pardons. Not the least of which that they, especially Flynn, were implicated by a wrongful attempt to bring down the President.

And those attempts to bring down the President were as harmful to "our democracy" as what you want to blame Trump for.

So Trump’s a Stable Genius and a constitutionalist…

Now tell me why Manafort was pardoned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-23-2023, 07:49 PM

So Trump’s a Stable Genius and a constitutionalist…

Now tell me why Manafort was pardoned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because, as you say, Trump is a Stable Genius. If that's not good enough for you, some would say that google is your friend. You might want to try a variety of right leaning sources as well as the lefties.

And I'm not your puppet dancing to the tune of your every demand.

Pete F.

01-23-2023, 08:01 PM

Because, as you say, Trump is a Stable Genius. If that's not good enough for you, some would say that google is your friend. You might want to try a variety of right leaning sources as well as the lefties.

And I'm not your puppet dancing to the tune of your every demand.

But Putin had puppets

Senior FBI official who led 2016 investigation finding no link between Trump and Russia, Charles McGonigal, has now been arrested for taking and laundering money for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

01-23-2023, 08:02 PM

Deripaska was indicted last year and is being tried for a number of federal crimes.

Paul Manafort, Trump's 2016 campaign manager, also worked for Deripaska and then laundered the money, getting convicted -- before Trump pardoned him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-23-2023, 08:41 PM

Look out! Pete is now on a roll. He has totally taken over the thread, totally hijacked it. Expect more and more and more and more . . . He's flooding the zone with his prized little bits of one-sided old news . . . he can't be stopped . . . He's like a high speed train run amuck . . . no! he is like a John the Baptist in the desert and in the wilderness of the ignorant . . . educating us about Putin's puppets . . . about Deripaska . . . about Russian oligarchs . . . and Trump and Russia . . . in case we haven't heard the good news . . . we will be cleansed . . . and saved . . . in the baptismal waters of Pete the political baptist . . . get on your knees and thank the leftist heaven that he will not stop until Trump is crucified!

Rmarsh

01-24-2023, 06:53 AM

wdmso

01-24-2023, 07:15 AM

He has been promising us this for years

DOJ: 4 Oath Keepers Convicted of Seditious Conspiracy for Jan. 6

Nothing happens overnight your hero might still get his jump suit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

01-24-2023, 07:15 AM

Rmarsh

01-24-2023, 07:17 AM

DOJ: 4 Oath Keepers Convicted of Seditious Conspiracy for Jan. 6

Nothing happens overnight your hero might still get his jump suit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not my hero....I just like seeing justice applied equally.....keep making assumptions ....it is fitting.

Pete F.

01-24-2023, 07:24 AM

Florida man is #^&#^&#^&#^&ting his pants about Special Counsel Jack Smith's work.

At 1 am, Trump ranted on "Truth social": "My Special Counsel (“PROSECUTOR”) is viciously harassing and bullying anyone and everyone in sight."
Trump’s scared, as he should be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

01-24-2023, 08:01 AM

Not my hero....I just like seeing justice applied equally.....keep making assumptions ....it is fitting.

What do you mean by "applied equally"?

He already has been fined $Ms for his crimes.

detbuch

01-24-2023, 11:29 AM

with his prized little bits of one-sided old news . .

Spoken like a true cult member
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My "cult"?? is better than yours.

detbuch

01-24-2023, 11:32 AM

Pete F.

01-24-2023, 01:07 PM

Propaganda Pete tells us that Trump is scared. The cult of Propaganda Pete is scary.

Right out of Goebbels Nazi's propaganda playbook.

Accuse the other of that which you are guilty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-24-2023, 01:19 PM

Right out of Goebbels Nazi's propaganda playbook.

Accuse the other of that which you are guilty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's what you just did. (I back up my claim, as in post #110 in the Rons at it again thread.) And then you did it again in post #111 of that same thread.

Pete F.

01-24-2023, 01:42 PM

That's what you just did. (I back up my claim, as in post #110 in the Rons at it again thread.) And then you did it again in post #111 of that same thread.

Sure, as long as guns are unlimited, history is defined how you want, you define voting, they make books criminal, the only relationship that’s allowed to be read about is between a man and a woman and you’re not woke because reading, science and empathy are bad.
It’s easier to figure out once you realize that woke is a stand-in for the N word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-24-2023, 02:34 PM

Sure, as long as guns are unlimited,

I don't know what an unlimited gun is.

history is defined how you want,

Are you saying Black scholars define history the way they want?

you define voting,

Are you saying that Democrats define voting?

they make books criminal,

You mean putting people in jail if they own or sell a book?

the only relationship that’s allowed to be read about is between a man and a woman and you’re not woke because reading, science and empathy are bad.

Does the Republican agenda disallow you from reading about relations between different genders or sexes, or different animals or life forms? Does the Republican agenda disallow reading, or science, or empathy?

It’s easier to figure out once you realize that woke is a stand-in for the N word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not sure what you've figured out, but the way you express it sure sounds like the vagueness of propaganda.

wdmso

01-24-2023, 03:06 PM

Not my hero....I just like seeing justice applied equally.....keep making assumptions ....it is fitting.

Justice being applied equally is another right wing talking point.

Justice has never been applied equally because all cases aren’t equal..

Ya ok he’s not your hero. :wavey:

Pete F.

01-24-2023, 03:30 PM

Not sure what you've figured out, but the way you express it sure sounds like the vagueness of propaganda.

A teacher giving a child a book determined by the state to be inappropriate is a class 3 felony in Floriduh under DeFascist.
You think any lawyer would recommend that teachers provide any books to children?
Classroom libraries have been one of the effective aids developed to increase literacy.

But I spout propaganda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-24-2023, 05:52 PM

A teacher giving a child a book determined by the state to be inappropriate is a class 3 felony in Floriduh under DeFascist.
You think any lawyer would recommend that teachers provide any books to children?
Classroom libraries have been one of the effective aids developed to increase literacy.

But I spout propaganda

Yes you do. Because you said that this was under your notion of part of an entire Republican agenda. Different states have different policies. States run by Republican agendas do not all have the same policies. But you generalize a specific example to falsely paint a picture of being an "entire" agenda.

Here you give a broad brush example of a specific which is supposed to categorize an overall picture. You paint a singular hypothetical that is supposed to cover the entire range of the Republican agenda in the domain of books in school libraries.

As far as I know, Florida does not, in general, felonize giving an inappropriate book to a child. But in a Florida Public School classroom, the material must be, “free of pornography” and “appropriate for the age level and group.” Public schools throughout the nation have traditionally done this sort of thing. Who decides that is determined by district school boards. Florida House Bill 1467 makes what materials are being used and what are being considered for purchase far more transparent to the public and allows more public input. A major objection to it from the left is that it is an "extreme, developmentally inappropriate, and often outright harmful level of parental control over access to information". So who's freedom are we talking about here? The Freedom of the citizens, or the power of the bureaucracy? The bill empowers the citizens over the "system."

Allowing the people to have a say is not fascist. Telling the people to shut up and take it is.

Pete F.

01-24-2023, 07:23 PM

Yes you do. Because you said that this was under your notion of part of an entire Republican agenda. Different states have different policies. States run by Republican agendas do not all have the same policies. But you generalize a specific example to falsely paint a picture of being an "entire" agenda.

Here you give a broad brush example of a specific which is supposed to categorize an overall picture. You paint a singular hypothetical that is supposed to cover the entire range of the Republican agenda in the domain of books in school libraries.

As far as I know, Florida does not, in general, felonize giving an inappropriate book to a child. But in a Florida Public School classroom, the material must be, “free of pornography” and “appropriate for the age level and group.” Public schools throughout the nation have traditionally done this sort of thing. Who decides that is determined by district school boards. Florida House Bill 1467 makes what materials are being used and what are being considered for purchase far more transparent to the public and allows more public input. A major objection to it from the left is that it is an "extreme, developmentally inappropriate, and often outright harmful level of parental control over access to information". So who's freedom are we talking about here? The Freedom of the citizens, or the power of the bureaucracy? The bill empowers the citizens over the "system."

Allowing the people to have a say is not fascist. Telling the people to shut up and take it is.

It’s a class 3 felony for a teacher to give a “bad” book to a child, not a hypothesis.

ALEC currently has the same legislation in every Republican legislative body in the country.
Claiming it’s different in every one is baloney, the same people are funding and writing the bills nationwide.

Just what did Ron DeFascist tell Disney?
You think other weaker businesses didn’t see that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

01-24-2023, 07:34 PM

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives who draft and share model legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States

ALEC has produced model bills on a broad range of issues, such as reducing regulation and individual and corporate taxation, combating illegal immigration, loosening environmental regulations, tightening voter identification rules, weakening labor unions, and opposing gun control.[8][9][10][11] Some of these bills dominate legislative agendas in states

But they have No agenda lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-24-2023, 11:02 PM

It’s a class 3 felony for a teacher to give a “bad” book to a child, not a hypothesis.

In the context of your "Why does the entire Republican agenda involve stopping, limiting, or taking away something," it creates a hypothetical notion that it is part of the "entire" Republican agenda. And you give an abbreviated description that sounds so horrible. But it is not. Public schools have always had standards to be met. States mandate that your children must attend a school, and what must be taught. And what is not allowed. Not abiding by policy has always had severe punishments. Usually being fired or suspended. That is not particularly a Republican agenda. Nor does "the entire Republican agenda involve stopping, limiting, or taking away something". That's pure propaganda.

You think any lawyer would recommend that teachers provide any books to children?

A lawyer would recommend books that the school boards allow, and not recommend books that were against school policy. At least for schoolroom use. Outside of the school, acting as a private citizen, not a public school teacher, I expect that the teacher would have wider latitude.

Classroom libraries have been one of the effective aids developed to increase literacy.

And they still will be, even in Florida. The Bible would be an effective aid to increase literacy. I don't think Dems want to allow the Bible in public classroom libraries.

ALEC currently has the same legislation in every Republican legislative body in the country.

ALEC does not legislate. It recommends, influences, just as other nonprofits, like Planned Parenthood and the Health industries, etc. But the legislatures have to choose to adopt the various models, or parts of them, or versions that suit their constituency, and then create a bill to be voted on by the public. State legislators are not experts on every subject. Many are fairly stupid, actually. They get lots of advice from all manner of lobbyists and organizations. So the politicians pick and choose what they want to support (or are paid to support) or what they think can get them elected depending on the nature of their constituents. So, no, not every Republican state has the same laws, just as not all the Democrat states do either.

Claiming it’s different in every one is baloney, the same people are funding and writing the bills nationwide.

Not true. Not at the state level.

Just what did Ron DeFascist tell Disney?
You think other weaker businesses didn’t see that?

Actually, Disney had a fascist agreement with the State of Florida which gave Disney a sweet tax deal and Disney could basically regulate its own conduct in Disneyland. Desantis stopped that but not until June, by which time a new fascist deal can be hammered out.

And weaker companies didn't have that kind of fascist deal to risk. And, c'mon man, you don't think weaker companies fear their governments' intrusion into their viability if they don't tow the ruling political party's line? Look what's happening with the insertion of diversity, equality, and inclusion training in all manner of businesses.

Pete F.

01-24-2023, 11:17 PM

Actually, Disney had a fascist agreement with the State of Florida which gave Disney a sweet tax deal and Disney could basically regulate its own conduct in Disneyland. Desantis stopped that but not until June, by which time a new fascist deal can be hammered out.

And weaker companies didn't have that kind of fascist deal to risk. And, c'mon man, you don't think weaker companies fear their governments' intrusion into their viability if they don't tow the ruling political party's line. Look what' happening with the insertion of diversity, equality, and inclusion training in all manner of businesses.

So Disney’s deal was fascist, now fascism is providing services to your own business at your cost while the state doesn’t pay. DeFascist found out that his tantrum was going to cost Floridians a fortune and tucked his tail between his legs and ran.

Tell us “what' happening with the insertion of diversity, equality, and inclusion training in all manner of businesses.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-25-2023, 12:12 AM

So Disney’s deal was fascist, now fascism is providing services to your own business at your cost while the state doesn’t pay. DeFascist found out that his tantrum was going to cost Floridians a fortune and tucked his tail between his legs and ran.

Yes it was a fascist merger between a corporation and the state. Florida gave special tax and governance privileges that made it possible for the Disney corporation to appropriate some of the authority of the government. For the good of the state and the people. Yes, fascism purports that the merger of the state and corporations can be made to promote the benefit of the people.

Tell us “what' happening with the insertion of diversity, equity, and inclusion training in all manner of businesses.”

It is "what" is happening. A sort of fascistic merger between govt. with Corporations who are seeing what's coming in compliance to government mandates and getting ahead of the eventual curve.

From GovDocs:

"With laws related to diversity, equity and inclusion now cropping up at the federal level, employers may see additional compliance requirements.

And companies operating in locations across the U.S. should review local laws, ensure they align with company policies and procedures, and act accordingly."

Pete F.

01-25-2023, 12:22 AM

It is "what" is happening. A sort of fascistic merger between govt. with Corporations who are seeing what's coming in compliance to government mandates and getting ahead of the eventual curve.

From GovDocs:

"With laws related to diversity, equity and inclusion now cropping up at the federal level, employers may see additional compliance requirements.

And companies operating in locations across the U.S. should review local laws, ensure they align with company policies and procedures, and act accordingly."

So now it’s kinda sorta fascist and people might have to comply.
Just like they had to comply with all the other stuff.
Why they even let women be firemen and join the service, how horrible. Everything has gone downhill since they let them vote….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-25-2023, 01:11 AM

So now it’s kinda sorta fascist and people might have to comply.

Yes. Fascism hasn't been universally defined. There are varient definitions, but closely aligned.

Just like they had to comply with all the other stuff.

No. Not just like all.

Why they even let women be firemen and join the service, how horrible. Everything has gone downhill since they let them vote….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

firemen, or firepersons, or firefighters of whatever identities, and military personnel, are by far some form of government job, not strictly private corporation employees. And voting is a private, individual action, not a government or corporate action.

wdmso

01-25-2023, 09:22 AM

Its fun to see all the conservatives parading Musk around on their shoulders thinking His twitter files are another smoking Gun

But the savior himself at his current Trial made a not so shocking comment . Suggesting what's been said here already that 280 character count minimum in a tweet leaves a lot information out

On Friday, Musk had testified he thinks it is possible to be “absolutely truthful” on Twitter. "But can you be comprehensive? Of course not.”

So keep believing his twitter releases are comprehensive you've been played again .

By King troll feeding you what you wanted to believe :eek:

wdmso

01-25-2023, 09:26 AM

Actually, Disney had a fascist agreement with the State of Florida which gave Disney a sweet tax deal and Disney could basically regulate its own conduct in Disneyland. Desantis stopped that but not until June, by which time a new fascist deal can be hammered out.

And weaker companies didn't have that kind of fascist deal to risk. And, c'mon man, you don't think weaker companies fear their governments' intrusion into their viability if they don't tow the ruling political party's line? Look what's happening with the insertion of diversity, equality, and inclusion training in all manner of businesses.

The Villages have the same agreement . But their considered conservative . so their to be ignored

the real fascists calling others Fascists classic

detbuch

01-25-2023, 12:09 PM

the real fascists calling others Fascists classic

This is ironic.

Pete F.

01-25-2023, 01:01 PM

This is ironic.

Isn't it ironic & transparently obvious to anyone that Right Wing Conservatives fear and ascribe to Progressives & Leftists the very Agenda that only Authoritarian Fascists ever seek to implement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-25-2023, 01:48 PM

Isn't it ironic & transparently obvious to anyone that Right Wing Conservatives fear and ascribe to Progressives & Leftists the very Agenda that only Authoritarian Fascists ever seek to implement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the most part, they are correct. The one thing, basically, that would prevent the centralization of American government into a fascistic single state instead of 50 different states is the Constitution. And if there is one thing that Progressives and leftist most want to achieve is the circumvention and/or the abolishment of the Constitution.

Pete F.

01-25-2023, 01:56 PM

For the most part, they are correct. The one thing, basically, that would prevent the centralization of American government into a fascistic single state instead of 50 different states is the Constitution. And if there is one thing that Progressives and leftist most want to achieve is the circumvention and/or the abolishment of the Constitution.

Sure
That’s why Dark money and ALEC exist because the oligarchy want to grow their power even more than it has for the last fifty years.

Like the Republican Party says:
If you're one of the top 1% and you want an enonomy that works for you, vote Republican. If the other 99% want to purchase their very own Congressman or Senator, see our Etsy page.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-25-2023, 02:43 PM

Sure

Yes, "Sure" is the correct answer.

That’s why Dark money and ALEC exist because the oligarchy want to grow their power even more than it has for the last fifty years.

ALEC's mission is "limited government, free markets and federalism"--Federalism and limited government are antithetical to fascism.

Like the Republican Party says:
If you're one of the top 1% and you want an enonomy that works for you, vote Republican. If the other 99% want to purchase their very own Congressman or Senator, see our Etsy page.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Republican Party says many things. Some are true. And some, maybe many, Republicans are Progressive.

American constitutional government is a stone's throw from a form of fascism. Its main defenses against fascism are the limitation of government, the guaranty of individual liberty, and the sovereignty of its states. Without those defenses, even with relatively free markets, we can easily slide into a single, unitary state with unlimited power to do what it decides is the greatest good of the people. Fascism purports to do that through the power of the state in bed with and control of corporate power both working in unison to achieve the goal.

Progressives, from their beginnings in this country have professed that the Constitution is outdated, a hinderance to good government, and that government should be unshackled to do what is best for the people. They have twisted and contorted the Constitution through dubious and false "interpretations" to progressively gain more and more centralized power over governance of this nation. And if enough power is achieved, Progressives would either finally discard the Constitution, or write a new one that assures the power of a unitary state under Progressive ideology--or, maybe keep the old one and pretend they followed its precepts.

wdmso

01-25-2023, 03:26 PM

leftist most want to achieve is the circumvention and/or the abolishment of the Constitution.

Glad to See you haven’t run out of your supplies of tinfoil
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-25-2023, 03:45 PM

leftist most want to achieve is the circumvention and/or the abolishment of the Constitution.

Glad to See you haven’t run out of your supplies of tinfoil
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't mind giving you an occasion to be glad. The Progressives have stated many times throughout their history in this country that the Constitution was not, or no longer, useful, but that it was a hinderance. That is not tin foil, that is fact. Some have wanted it totally abolished, some want it mostly scrapped, they have always used "interpretation" to circumvent its meaning and purpose.

I don't know if that would make you glad, but it is verifiable. As Spence might say, for instance, check the archives on this forum. I spent considerable time and words verifying it. I don't want to . . . I am getting tired of . . going over things that have already been said, over and over. Check it out if you wish . . . or stay glad wrapped in tinfoil.

Got Stripers

01-25-2023, 06:38 PM

Pete stop feeding the troll, your playing right into DeBarr’s hand.

wdmso

01-25-2023, 06:52 PM

I don't mind giving you an occasion to be glad. The Progressives have stated many times throughout their history in this country that the Constitution was not, or no longer, useful, but that it was a hinderance. That is not tin foil, that is fact. Some have wanted it totally abolished, some want it mostly scrapped, they have always used "interpretation" to circumvent its meaning and purpose.

I don't know if that would make you glad, but it is verifiable. As Spence might say, for instance, check the archives on this forum. I spent considerable time and words verifying it. I don't want to . . . I am getting tired of . . going over things that have already been said, over and over. Check it out if you wish . . . or stay glad wrapped in tinfoil.

Most constitutional originlist are that way because I think It requires no critical thinking skills or objectivity it requires they just imagine what the founders were thinking in 1788.

Because they can’t accept American and it’s people don’t stand still
They evolve and that scares them

constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification,” and that that original meaning “is law” even today.

Imagine if the field of medicine or mathematics science or technology worked under the same logic

But hea now we have a court that’s all about going backwards

detbuch

01-25-2023, 08:56 PM

Most constitutional originlist are that way because I think It requires no critical thinking skills or objectivity it requires they just imagine what the founders were thinking in 1788.

Because they can’t accept American and it’s people don’t stand still
They evolve and that scares them

constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification,” and that that original meaning “is law” even today.

Imagine if the field of medicine or mathematics science or technology worked under the same logic

But hea now we have a court that’s all about going backwards

That's some superior critical thinking you've exhibited. And very original as well. Never heard of those things. Shows my ignorance and my dearth of critical thought.

But it does seem I was sort of right, may just be luck, that Progressives (I assume you're a Progressive) think the Constitution is outdated and inadequate for "our time." Actually, they have often said that, and that it should be replaced by something better. No doubt, better means aligned with their far better ideology.

We probably should have had new constitutions several times already. I mean, things change. There were a lot of decades that passed from then to now. And things change, dramatically, more quickly as time expands. Maybe we should have a new one every five or ten years. Or maybe we should do away with one, and just let the federal government and its courts keep up with the changing times by passing new, appropriate legislation quickly as needed, and the courts could decide, if needed, if the laws are socially just.

Jim in CT

01-25-2023, 09:14 PM

Most constitutional originlist are that way because I think It requires no critical thinking skills or objectivity it requires they just imagine what the founders were thinking in 1788.

Because they can’t accept American and it’s people don’t stand still
They evolve and that scares them

constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification,” and that that original meaning “is law” even today.

Imagine if the field of medicine or mathematics science or technology worked under the same logic

But hea now we have a court that’s all about going backwards

wayne, if you’re ok with liberals deciding “what the constitution really means” when they’re in power,, that means conservatives get to do the same when they’re in power. Right? You’re ok with that? Not me.

Safer to stick with what the founders wanted, that’s the best guarantee that we the people get the protections that have been created for us. I’m don’t want Ihan Omar or that Santos jerk changing it to suit their sick desires.

If a big majority wants a specific change, there is a mechanism to do just that, which has been utilized many times. It’s called adding amendments.

What you call going backwards,,can also be called playing by the rules, instead of making them up as we go along.

The constitution is t frozen in time forever. Are you mit aware it can be amended? but we have to follow the rules in order to change it. that’s a good thing. in my opinion.

Pete F.

01-25-2023, 09:52 PM

wayne, if you’re ok with liberals deciding “what the constitution really means” when they’re in power,, that means conservatives get to do the same when they’re in power. Right? You’re ok with that? Not me.

Safer to stick with what the founders wanted, that’s the best guarantee that we the people get the protections that have been created for us. I’m don’t want Ihan Omar or that Santos jerk changing it to suit their sick desires.

If a big majority wants a specific change, there is a mechanism to do just that, which has been utilized many times. It’s called adding amendments.

What you call going backwards,,can also be called playing by the rules, instead of making them up as we go along.

The constitution is t frozen in time forever. Are you mit aware it can be amended? but we have to follow the rules in order to change it. that’s a good thing. in my opinion.

That’s not how it works.
Let’s look at the 14th amendment, The plain text reading would be that anything characterized as an "insurrection or rebellion" would disqualify an official.
You think we should go with that, or is it the framers' intention reading which would be that obviously this was enacted in the wake of the Civil War, so the type of "insurrection or rebellion" the 14A's framers were referring to was something akin to the Confederacy's prosecution of the Civil War, which January 6 was not.
Legal scholarship really can't tell you anything useful to decide a case like this. We already know that this provision was enacted in response to the Civil War- the legislative history is going to be all about DQ'ing people who participated in it.
And you certainly aren't going to find any conclusive evidence of what they thought about "lesser" forms of insurrection or rebellion, because they weren't thinking about that. They were thinking about DQ'ing participants in the Civil War.

This is one of the reasons why Originalism doesn't work the way its proponents claim. A LOT of interpretation issues just involve situations where one canon points one way and another canon points another way. And you have to pick.
And someone won’t like it.
That’s the way it works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

01-25-2023, 11:14 PM

That’s not how it works.
Let’s look at the 14th amendment, The plain text reading would be that anything characterized as an "insurrection or rebellion" would disqualify an official.
You think we should go with that, or is it the framers' intention reading which would be that obviously this was enacted in the wake of the Civil War, so the type of "insurrection or rebellion" the 14A's framers were referring to was something akin to the Confederacy's prosecution of the Civil War, which January 6 was not.
Legal scholarship really can't tell you anything useful to decide a case like this. We already know that this provision was enacted in response to the Civil War- the legislative history is going to be all about DQ'ing people who participated in it.
And you certainly aren't going to find any conclusive evidence of what they thought about "lesser" forms of insurrection or rebellion, because they weren't thinking about that. They were thinking about DQ'ing participants in the Civil War.

This is one of the reasons why Originalism doesn't work the way its proponents claim. A LOT of interpretation issues just involve situations where one canon points one way and another canon points another way. And you have to pick.
And someone won’t like it.
That’s the way it works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A textual originalist would not have the problem that you represent. He would not base the proper interpretation on "anything characterized" as an "insurrection or rebellion". He would refer to the definition of those words that existed at the time the amendment was written. One of the tricks that Progressives use to twist and torture the Constitution in order to justify the passing of something that is actually unconstitutional is to use current shades of words that were not contemplated at the time the Amendment was created. This is also one of the reasons why they claim that the Constitution is too difficult to interpret.