They found three classified documents in his desk drawer. The passports were in the same drawer. Would be hard to claim he didn’t know about them if they were stored in the same place as his passports……..pretty important personal documents.
Trump gets his Master
- Thread starter BSIT
- Start date
“Would be hard to claim” is not the legal standard of proof.
You apparently have faith in the integrity of the FBI and DOJ. You care about legal process and precedent. Where does the constant leaking of "supposed" products of the search fit in that narrative? Under our justice system one is allegedly innocent until proven guilty. How does one get a fair day in court when the accusers contaminate any potential jury pool long before charges are filed? A great many might suspect that criminal charges were never intended just the laying on of implicit suspicion of guilt.
The whole world is out to get him. Get with the program.
Lol. Ok. Don’t use my uneducated legal wording. I’m not playing 20 questions. I’m sure the legal standard of proof doesn’t mean absolute certainty. There has to a judgement made. So it comes down to either some else placed the classified documents in a drawer in his desk without his knowledge or he new they were there since they were in the same drawer as his important personal documents……such as his passports.
Bingo. This is what they have done to Trump on day one and it's apparent it's working since people like @BNIBoiler and @BuilderBob6 seem to KNOW that Trump is a criminal. Even though they have yet to actually prove it in any way.
How often do you look at your passports? I've had mine for 10 years and I didn't look at them at all until just this summer when we went to Ireland. You act as if a passport is something that is needed on a daily basis.
Maybe it was the picture of of him and Rudy in the bathroom when Rudy got his hair dye job1!
Come on, J Mac. I didn't claim you care what Bob thinks (why would you or anybody?) or about my theories, and I didn't claim the FBI or DOJ care about anyone who is not a political threat to the inbred DC establishment (unless they want to make an example out of them, like some of the Jan 6 protesters, for example).
My theory is based on evidence and proof of previous FBI corruption, so it does not "suck", to use your non-legal term.
Is it not reasonable in legal matters to suspect corrupt activity from those who have been proven corrupt in the past - including the recent past?
“Suck” is an incredibly descriptive term. An evocative verb and a spicy adjective.
Oughta be an anti-suck law IMO.
First you and puf tried to lure me over to watch the Jan 6 show trial, and now you say you have a wife. Putting two and two together....
Speaking of two and two, did we ask you under this user name or your other user name?
And again, thanks for continuing to let me live rent-free. It’s very open-concept, plenty of room.
You're just embarrassed I figured out you are Bob's wife. Nobody is surprised and nobody cares except for the amusement value, so lighten up.
You are also embarrassed I figured out you and purduesucksbad are one and the same. There is something sick and wrong about that, which is disgusting to all real Purdue alums.
Yeah, you’ve really got us figured out, 😂😂😂😂.
But seriously, why do you have two names? Couldn’t remember the first one?
By the way, while the FBI is a really big agency and of course will have its share of lesser and better employees, what is your evidence of any systemic corruption by FBI Agents from the recent past?
A hint: you not liking investigative conclusions, “because I say so,” “someone does/doesn’t like Trump in their personal messages,” or “blah blah blah Hunter Biden blah blah blah” is not evidence of corruption.
Before I reply, JM, clarify what you mean by "systemic". There is substantial evidence and proof of corruption at high executive levels in the FBI, but I do not believe it goes down to the level of field agents who are just following orders. In fact, it appears that more than a dozen agents have now made whistleblower complaints about FBI corruption, so I am confident those individuals are not corrupt.
Also before I reply, are you claiming there is not substantial evidence and proof of corruption at high executive levels in the FBI?
Corruption? I am saying there is most certainly NOT substantial evidence and proof of corruption at high executive levels of the FBI.
Decisions you strongly disagree with?
Sure.
Are you now saying you don't follow the news - or else follow it only on the regime media?
You are aware of this guilty plea, right JM? Do you think this guy's actions were part of a wider plan to discredit and bring down Trump, or else that he was just an incompetent FBI lawyer acting on his own despite what would be obvious to a competent lawyer -- that it would constitute a career-ending risk and possible prison time?
nypost.com
Ex-FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleads guilty to falsifying documents in Russia probe
Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty on Wednesday to falsifying documents used to monitor 2016 Trump campaign aide Carter Page during a hearing in federal court in Washington. “At the …
nypost.com
Exactly! My point just got proven by you.You are aware of this guilty plea, right JM? Do you think this guy's actions were part of a wider plan to discredit and bring down Trump, or else that he was just an incompetent FBI lawyer acting on his own despite what would be obvious to a competent lawyer -- that it would constitute a career-ending risk and possible prison time?
Ex-FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleads guilty to falsifying documents in Russia probe
Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty on Wednesday to falsifying documents used to monitor 2016 Trump campaign aide Carter Page during a hearing in federal court in Washington. “At the …
The best you could come up with is one 38 year old nonmanagerial, non-executive, non-special agent attorney who did wrong when he altered one email, and pled to a no jail time misdemeanor.
What else have you got for systemic corruption by FBI executives?
Not the best I can come up with at all.
Clinesmith worked for FBI executives. Do you think he was incompetent or acting on their instructions?
Oooh.. I thought we were going for PROOF here. I guess you moved on with NO OTHER EXAMPLES OTHER THAN A JUNIOR, NON-AGENT, NON-MANAGEMENT, NON-EXECUTIVE’s MISDEMEANOR.
Are you throwing in the towel on ANY actual evidence of executive, systemic, or proven corruption? Thought so, because you’ve offered NOTHING and have moved on to my speculative opinion.
So my opinion? Clinesmith tried to get away with something and didn’t tell anyone. Cause when people are trying to get away with something and they tell their supervisor they get in trouble right away.
They get in trouble right away - unless their supervisor is in on it.
Are you claiming Clinesmith's guilty plea is not EVIDENCE of FBI corruption?
I know it’s football season, so in honor of you moving the goalposts, let me remind you of YOUR EXACT WORDS:
“are you claiming there is not substantial evidence and proof of corruption at high executive levels in the FBI?”
I replied no evidence of corruption (a statutory violation) at HIGH EXECUTIVE LEVELS in the FBI.
You came back with a misdemeanor by a low level, non-agent, non-managerial attorney.
So at times you’ve been semi-reasonable with admitting to me when I’m right (or effective with comedy lol) and you’re wrong. I now wait for you to fully admit that you were—let’s see—“mistaken”
I don’t even need an apology—because I’m a nice guy and I forgive you! And please refrain from further movement of the goalposts that you cemented into the turf.
Last edited:
btw, what do you think he was trying to get away with? Taking a risk that could destroy his career?
Come on, what is far more likely. He was corrupt as part of a larger scheme or an incompetent lawyer out to risk his career ?
Bump-a-rooni Riveting.
Are we both ready to agree that you have NO evidence or proof of (here come your words again) “corruption at high executive levels at the FBI”?
You know the answer. The is much more to come before I even mention the IG reports on the FBI (did you hear about them in the regime media?)
You are just jousting because you enjoy it, taking the weak side of the debate just for fun. You are the most worthy jousting opponent I have encountered on this forum, but your position here is pathetically weak and will be destroyed.
I am not listing all of the numerous items of evidence and proof all at once because you will seize on what you consider to be the weakest to try to invalidate the entire list. You would do that, wouldn't you, J Mac?
Oh now I understand! I used YOUR standard, and you have NOTHING. NOTHING!!
I’m not “jousting,” I’m waiting for you to come up with anything to support YOUR contention that, AND I QUOTE:
“corruption at high executive levels at the FBI”
And YOU. HAVE. NOTHING.
NOTHING
You seem a bit stressed, as if it were halftime of the Great Potatoes / Leonation clash last night. Pounding on the keys with all caps and boldface does not magically make your pathetically weak position stronger, J Mac.
So that you are not even more confused than I thought, my contention is that there is substantial evidence and proof of corruption of high executive levels at the FBI.
Clinesmith is one piece of evidence of that, which I think you know, but there is much more to come. In the meantime, I hope you are not a Colts fan.
Not stressed even the slightest.
Glad we now agree that there is no proof of corruption at high executive levels of the FBI.
You thought you could throw out anti-law enforcement bullsh!t at the wall and no one would call you out?
Now you’ve gone from
“corruption at high executive levels at the FBI”
to saying:
None yet! But trust Riveting—someday it’ll happen.
You must HATE that standard you set because you are Googling furiously and found you have nothing to back it up. But I knew it was absolute nonsense from the second I saw it.
Thats some really weak sauce. Next time don’t slander law enforcement without facts. It makes you look HORRIBLE!
Last edited:
Nice try, but you won't bait me in to posting everything at once so you can try to shoot it all down with what you think is the weakest.
Here is how wapo characterized the guilty plea:
The former FBI lawyer who admitted to doctoring an email that other officials relied upon to justify secret surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser was sentenced Friday to 12 months of probation, with no time behind bars.
So you are in a position of saying Clinesmith was incompetent and corrupt, but that the "other officials" were also incompetent by not verifying Clinesmith's email. Given that this involved a President, the "other officials" would have been ultra careful to make sure everything was on the up and up - unless they didn't want it to be on the up and up.
Obviously, what really happened is Clinesmith changed the email to be able to tell them what he knew they wanted to hear. I know that you know that, JM.
Oh good lord. The only reason he was prosecuted was because others didn’t know better and relied on it. That’s exactly what the prosecution filings state!
You cannot name any corrupt high level executive at the FBI, nor proof. Rather than continuing to bury yourself with non-responsive speculation, give it up for today.
You cannot name any corrupt high level executive at the FBI, nor proof. Rather than continuing to bury yourself with non-responsive speculation, give it up for today.
It is too easy just to name someone (for example, McCabe), which would wreck the joust. Rather, it is more fun to see what absurd lengths you will go to try to make your case.
And you are off to a very strong start in your quest for absurdity, JM.
Btw, do you accept the findings in an IG report as proof?
PS, 'others' did know better. For example, the "others" who sent him the email he doctored to suit the fake narrative the FBI was constructing.
What is McCabe’s “corruption?”
You so far have come up with one line of one email from a (then) 36 year old non-managerial, non-agent, non-executive lawyer and his misdemeanor plea.
So, FWIW, another “tell” from you. You really think this is “jousting?” My entire posting history has been to tell you the truth, not to “joust.”
Now back to your standard— not your “you mean to tell me?” crap. That’s NOT evidence of high-level executive corruption. That is (now THIS is my opinion) middle school playground logic.
Sorry to be harsh, but that’s the truth.
You are talking in circles while offering nothing new. Because you cannot. Because it doesn’t exist.
So I’m done here.
Last edited:
