Trump keeps begging for donations - Yikes, that doesn't bode well

[Husker_Du]

lmfao. you're dumber than Ban Basketball. 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

I want Trump to win and will be voting for him.

now call me names. 

OK... Trump voter.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

2 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Conspiracy theory history doesn't inform of us anything other than not to believe conspiracy theories.

"Red handed".., geezus. "Hilaries email server" was nothing but a con against her. Nothing happened to her because it was never a legitimate issue. At that time the DC email servers were notoriously security conscious. Anything that even had a whiff of not being right was blocked. Email was the way business got done, so DC'ers had to find alternatives. Gmail, hotmail, yahoo mail, etc. were not good choices - they retained rights to read and use any and all email content. So using a personal email server was a common choice. It's old news. We've been through this 1,000 times. Remember a guy named Colin Powell? He famously stood up and admitted this fact to everyone on the planet. That's the kind of person I wish we had more of. Had a backbone, wouldn't cave into political pressure, and called it like it really was based on his intellect (not what was being fed to him by the media.) 

 Shitty conspiracy theories need to be let go. 

... and, mspart, I expect a serious response from you. None of this political BS that your cohorts seem fond of.

[ThreePointTakedown]

17 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

Even if it was pure coincidence I’ll take it. Bahahahahhahahaha

 

17 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

The way you handled being wrong was gold standard. Bahhahahahahahahha

Have you ever admitted that you were wrong? 

Would you? 

You have been. You have been reluctant. That's why I don't take you seriously. Nor should anyone else. Flexing it seems is your motivation. Is that true? 

[JimmyBT]

56 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

Have you ever admitted that you were wrong? 

Would you? 

You have been. You have been reluctant. That's why I don't take you seriously. Nor should anyone else. Flexing it seems is your motivation. Is that true? 

Show us again how someone should handle being wrong.  You did it so well. 

[uncle bernard]

On 2/21/2024 at 1:27 AM, Husker_Du said:

no. he didn't ya dumbass. that's the point. 

if you don't recognize this (and other charges) for what it is - 3rd World banana republic bs - then you're a loon. 

How would you answer this? Just curious. 

 

[Husker_Du]

i'd respond that no one was defrauded b/c the loan was paid back, on time, with interest.

 

[uncle bernard]

4 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

i'd respond that no one was defrauded b/c the loan was paid back, on time, with interest.

 

That's not what fraud is. If he properly represents his worth, the terms of the loan (like the interest he would have to pay) would be different.

I imagine if I went to a bank and inflated my assets to get a more favorable deal on a loan, they'd be pretty pissed if they found out right?

[Husker_Du]

you don't have to imagine, nimrod.

the banks testified in court in favor of trump. 

stop cheerleading for trump's demise.

or don't. whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

you'll still be wrong on principle. 

[mspart]

16 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Conspiracy theory history doesn't inform of us anything other than not to believe conspiracy theories.

"Red handed".., geezus. "Hilaries email server" was nothing but a con against her. Nothing happened to her because it was never a legitimate issue. At that time the DC email servers were notoriously security conscious. Anything that even had a whiff of not being right was blocked. Email was the way business got done, so DC'ers had to find alternatives. Gmail, hotmail, yahoo mail, etc. were not good choices - they retained rights to read and use any and all email content. So using a personal email server was a common choice. It's old news. We've been through this 1,000 times. Remember a guy named Colin Powell? He famously stood up and admitted this fact to everyone on the planet. That's the kind of person I wish we had more of. Had a backbone, wouldn't cave into political pressure, and called it like it really was based on his intellect (not what was being fed to him by the media.) 

 Shitty conspiracy theories need to be let go. 

13 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

... and, mspart, I expect a serious response from you. None of this political BS that your cohorts seem fond of.

Your first statement would be true if it were Conspiracy theory.   Comey said it was not. 

Hillary's email server was a con against her?   https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

There is no con.   Hillary had emails that were classified in a server that was not on State Department property.   Comey said so in his statement that, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

So she broke the law, caught red handed, but they won't prosecute.    That is what the above says.   No conspiricy.   No con.  She did it and they didn't prosecute when they could have and had ample evidence to get a conviction.   You mention DC servers were notoriously security conscious.   This server was not in DC, but in fact was located remotely in Chappaqua, New York.   So your statement shows ignorance of the situation.  Colin Powell was at the beginning of email-dom so I give him a pass.   By the time Hillary stepped up, there were laws in place governing the use of email by government employees.   She worked around these and by credible sources exposed this data to foreign actors.  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/hillary-clintons-email-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html

When the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,” both private experts and federal investigators immediately understood his meaning: It very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.

I think I have fairly shown that she was caught red handed with classified documents in her possession on her personal server when they should not have been on that server.   She was most likely hacked by foreign actors per NYT reporting.  All of this was acknowledged by Comey with his recommendation that she not be prosecuted.   I have given you various sources here that should be credible to you.   Now it was not a Conspiracy theory.   She did it and didn't pay for it.  We know Biden did it and won't pay for it.   Trump did no worse and is paying for it.   If looking at this objectively doesn't give you the idea that there is a two tiered system of justice, you will never think that and will continue to believe your consipiracy theories about conspiracy theories.   And you will be proven wrong as you have been here.

mspart 

 

 

 

 

[mspart]

5 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

I imagine if I went to a bank and inflated my assets to get a more favorable deal on a loan, they'd be pretty pissed if they found out right?

They would find out and not be upset, they would adjust the terms of the loan to fit the situation.    The banks are not in the business of losing money on loans.   It does happen but they are careful.  In Trump's case they verified asset worth and overall found it favorable and went ahead with the loan.   But he was prosecuted anyway.   And this is why businesses are very concerned in NY and why the governor felt the need to try to tamp those concerns down by saying they are not Trump so they will not be prosecuted.  

mspart

[mspart]

Jonathan Turley says here what I have tried to say in past posts about the judicial system and the two tiered behemoth it has become.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/02/21/nothing-succeeds-like-excess-new-yorks-perverse-incentive-in-pricing-trump-out-of-an-appeal/#more-215973

Watching the celebrations probably caused many executives to check time shares in Florida. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has rushed to assure businesses that there is “nothing to worry about” after the corporate public execution of Trump and his company.

But the best that politicians like Hochul and Adams can offer is that you have nothing to fear from confiscatory actions unless you are Trump in New York.

Which is precisely why this decision should be overturned.

What is clear is that this case would never have been brought, let alone result in this massive fine, except for politics.

For example, if you are the NRA, James will seek your destruction for financial irregularities, but if you are Black Lives Matter or Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, there is little real risk in such controversies.

If the only protection in New York is the discretion of figures like James, few businesses would relish the future. The message is that you can expect blind and equal justice so long as you don’t run afoul of the Democrats in power.

If you are unpopular, you could be looking at not only unprecedented actions and fines, but a need to virtually liquidate your assets just to be able to appeal a decision.

This should shock the conscience of anyone concerned about the integrity and fairness of the New York legal system. Confiscatory fines and required deposits leave not just defendants but the entire system bankrupt.

This is what I am talking about.   And this from an objective Democrat observer. 

mspart

[Offthemat]

Mark Levin says Trump can appeal based on the 8th Amendment protection of excess fines.  
In another case, the one involving Mark Steyn, the jury awarded a $1 fine for compensatory damages and $1million for punitive damages by a DC court.  A lawyer showed that appeals usually reduce punitive penalties to single digit multiples of compensatory amounts, generally around four times but as much as nine.  Though this case should also have been dismissed, it’s another glaring example of our politicized legal system. 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

5 hours ago, mspart said:

Your first statement would be true if it were Conspiracy theory.   Comey said it was not. 

Hillary's email server was a con against her?   https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

There is no con.   Hillary had emails that were classified in a server that was not on State Department property.   Comey said so in his statement that, "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

So she broke the law, caught red handed, but they won't prosecute.    That is what the above says.   No conspiricy.   No con.  She did it and they didn't prosecute when they could have and had ample evidence to get a conviction.   You mention DC servers were notoriously security conscious.   This server was not in DC, but in fact was located remotely in Chappaqua, New York.   So your statement shows ignorance of the situation.  Colin Powell was at the beginning of email-dom so I give him a pass.   By the time Hillary stepped up, there were laws in place governing the use of email by government employees.   She worked around these and by credible sources exposed this data to foreign actors.  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/hillary-clintons-email-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html

When the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,” both private experts and federal investigators immediately understood his meaning: It very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.

I think I have fairly shown that she was caught red handed with classified documents in her possession on her personal server when they should not have been on that server.   She was most likely hacked by foreign actors per NYT reporting.  All of this was acknowledged by Comey with his recommendation that she not be prosecuted.   I have given you various sources here that should be credible to you.   Now it was not a Conspiracy theory.   She did it and didn't pay for it.  We know Biden did it and won't pay for it.   Trump did no worse and is paying for it.   If looking at this objectively doesn't give you the idea that there is a two tiered system of justice, you will never think that and will continue to believe your consipiracy theories about conspiracy theories.   And you will be proven wrong as you have been here.

mspart 

"Comey said it was not."

You are trying to use Comey as a serious reference?
After everything that has happened since then.

I know you follow the news because I read your posts. Why are you acting so incredibly stupid about something you know so much more about?

[mspart]

Did you read the link I sent in that post?   Comey laid out and I summarized for you, especially for you, what the evidence was and it was a lot.    And I laid out his reasoning for not recommending prosecution.   Facts and data prove you wrong.   Hillary's is not a conspiracy theory.   It is all there for everyone to see that can discern truth from error.  And you don't argue that point.   In fact you don't argue with anything other than tired tropes of of falsehoods that have been proven false, yet like Goebbels, you believe if you say them often enough people will start to believe.   You are now arguing by attacking me and Comey personally which is the last gasp of a lost argument.   Congratulations.  You lost.  And you did it by the leftist playbook which always gets it wrong.   Try using reason, facts, data, and discernment in your arguments.   They will enhance your ability to win arguments or at least you will avoid looking foolish while so engaged.  

mspart

Edited February 23 by mspart

[GreatWhiteNorth]

You use a LOT of words and a LOT of links. It does become a chore to try to follow your line of thinking, to say the least. Here's a quick rundown of what actually happened. Focus on the part about "two weeks before the presidential election", that's the zinger.

On July 10, 2015, the FBI opened a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

On July 2, 2016 FBI agents completed their investigation by interviewing Hillary Clinton at FBI headquarters, following which Comey and his associates decided there was no basis for criminal indictments in the case.

On July 5, 2016, Comey announced the FBI's recommendation that they file no criminal charges relating to the Hillary Clinton email controversy. During a press conference, Comey called Secretary Clinton's and her top aides' behavior "extremely careless" but concluded that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case".

On October 26, 2016, two weeks before the presidential election, Comey learned that FBI agents investigating an unrelated case involving former congressman Athony Weiner had discovered emails on Weiner's computer. Comey decided he had to inform Congress that the Clinton investigation was being reopened due to new information. Justice Department lawyers warned him that giving out public information about an investigation was inconsistent with department policy.

On October 28, Comey sent a letter to members of Congress advising them that the FBI was reviewing more emails. Members of Congress revealed the information to the public within minutes.

On November 6, 2016, Comey wrote in a second letter to Congress that "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July".

On May 9, 2017, President Trump formally dismissed Comey, less than 4 years into his 10-year term as Director of the FBI. Comey first learned of his termination from television news reports that flashed on screen while he was delivering a speech to agents at the Los Angeles Field Office.

Two weeks before the presidential election, the FBI (shockingly) reported that they were reopening an investigation into Hilary Clinton. An investigation that had been closed for over 4 months. A couple weeks later, it turned out to be nothing. Nothing at all... except for the hugely significant impact it had on the election. Roughly 5 months later, Cohen gets the boot.

Mspart is right - I'm not so sure this was a conspiracy theory. The email server part clearly was conspiracy theory. But the part where Comey weaponized the FBI against Hilary and then got kicked to the curb to tie up loose ends. That part is plenty suspicious.

[Husker_Du]

GWN, i don't think politics is your thing.

perhaps start a thread on cats or finger paintings or something.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

18 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

GWN, i don't think politics is your thing.

perhaps start a thread on cats or finger paintings or something.

Which part of calling out the truth makes "politics" not my thing, exactly?

Edited February 26 by GreatWhiteNorth

[ionel]

18 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

GWN, i don't think politics is your thing.

perhaps start a thread on cats or finger paintings or something.

[ionel]

12 minutes ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Which part of calling out the truth makes "politics" not my thing, exactly?

[WrestlingRasta]

On 2/24/2024 at 2:29 AM, GreatWhiteNorth said:

You use a LOT of words and a LOT of links. It does become a chore to try to follow your line of thinking, to say the least. Here's a quick rundown of what actually happened. Focus on the part about "two weeks before the presidential election", that's the zinger.

On July 10, 2015, the FBI opened a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

On July 2, 2016 FBI agents completed their investigation by interviewing Hillary Clinton at FBI headquarters, following which Comey and his associates decided there was no basis for criminal indictments in the case.

On July 5, 2016, Comey announced the FBI's recommendation that they file no criminal charges relating to the Hillary Clinton email controversy. During a press conference, Comey called Secretary Clinton's and her top aides' behavior "extremely careless" but concluded that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case".

On October 26, 2016, two weeks before the presidential election, Comey learned that FBI agents investigating an unrelated case involving former congressman Athony Weiner had discovered emails on Weiner's computer. Comey decided he had to inform Congress that the Clinton investigation was being reopened due to new information. Justice Department lawyers warned him that giving out public information about an investigation was inconsistent with department policy.

On October 28, Comey sent a letter to members of Congress advising them that the FBI was reviewing more emails. Members of Congress revealed the information to the public within minutes.

On November 6, 2016, Comey wrote in a second letter to Congress that "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July".

On May 9, 2017, President Trump formally dismissed Comey, less than 4 years into his 10-year term as Director of the FBI. Comey first learned of his termination from television news reports that flashed on screen while he was delivering a speech to agents at the Los Angeles Field Office.

Two weeks before the presidential election, the FBI (shockingly) reported that they were reopening an investigation into Hilary Clinton. An investigation that had been closed for over 4 months. A couple weeks later, it turned out to be nothing. Nothing at all... except for the hugely significant impact it had on the election. Roughly 5 months later, Cohen gets the boot.

Mspart is right - I'm not so sure this was a conspiracy theory. The email server part clearly was conspiracy theory. But the part where Comey weaponized the FBI against Hilary and then got kicked to the curb to tie up loose ends. That part is plenty suspicious.

‘You use a lot of words’

interrsting first  statement. 

[red viking]

Some of the idiots here will donate to him. 

[Ohio Elite]

42 minutes ago, red viking said:

Some of the idiots here will donate to him. 

Like you?

[mspart]

So GWN, You are saying that Hillary had a subpoena to retain devices and bleachbitted the server and used a hammer on the phones etc, and that is not an issue.    Nothing to see here.   And this tells us everything we need to know about your sense of justice.  

Hillary - obstruction of justice, playing with classified material.   No trial.

Biden - had paper classified documents in his garage that he had no right to not having been president.   No trial.

Trump - had paper classified documents secured as instructed and had a right because he had been president.   TRIAL TRIAL pants on fire.  

This of course is objective prosecution based only on the facts.    That's what you want us to believe.  Sorry, your sense of justice is definitely not objective but subjective to who is under scrutiny.   And that is not justice. 

mspart

[GreatWhiteNorth]

9 hours ago, mspart said:

So GWN, You are saying that Hillary had a subpoena to retain devices and bleachbitted the server and used a hammer on the phones etc, and that is not an issue.    Nothing to see here.   And this tells us everything we need to know about your sense of justice.  

Hillary - obstruction of justice, playing with classified material.   No trial.

Biden - had paper classified documents in his garage that he had no right to not having been president.   No trial.

Trump - had paper classified documents secured as instructed and had a right because he had been president.   TRIAL TRIAL pants on fire.  

This of course is objective prosecution based only on the facts.    That's what you want us to believe.  Sorry, your sense of justice is definitely not objective but subjective to who is under scrutiny.   And that is not justice. 

mspart

No, I'm not saying anything you posted above - at all. I disagree with all of it.

I'm saying that you're playing in a sandbox full of conspiracy theories and silly arguments.

And rather than being a "school mum" trying to correct you - I'm better off letting you be you.

I expect that you'll figure it out on your own.