Fair and likely but Mary doesn’t fucking know anything.
True, but these are not the words of innocent men.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung told Newsweek in a Saturday email that it is "unprofessional" to ask if the binder was sold to Russia. "What proof do you have?" he asked.
It sounds like Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung also has no clue, but he's seen this one enough times to know that his outright denial would probably be contradicted by Trump within the week.
Ah, the ol' Criminal reverse burden/onus of proof. Counter with the old motherly trick, why might I have reason to even need to bring this up with you...
What would Mary do/There's something off about Mary...
It sounds like this story originated with Trump to create a fake news story to distract from the real news of his court cases.
I don’t think a spokesman would know one way or another.
It’s depressing that question is also applicable to the Biden impeachment hearings.
It's applicable, but it's also not being used because Biden didn't do anything. You don't say it's unprofessional to ask the question and then ask what proof do you have, especially as a spokesperson. It's 'how to be ridiculous and look like you did it 101'.
This whole binder story smells like the kind of news stories we were fed during the early years of his presidency. It's so 2017, throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
We don't need any new controversies. We need to see the felonies that have already been charged be prosecuted intelligently and effectively.
Yea, this isn’t news
Yeah, I don't believe it, but only because he's too incompetent to have kept that kind of high treason a secret.
I absolutely would believe that he kept it with his poop magazines and it was stolen, or copied, by the Carpet King of Tampa, or a foreign intelligence asset. Either one is just as likely.
He's honestly stupid enough that he'd be bragging about the money he made from the sale if he did sell it
*"I think NATO is going to be very surprised...I had the best Generals, they wouldn't be surprised...the traitor generals who supported the election hoax and Joe Biden, they'll be surprised because they aren't good, okay, they're bad, very bad. My dad, very smart, so smart, he always said sell your books when you're done with them. Did you know binders are books? No one knew, but they are. I'm very smart and very good at deals. I make the deals, I sold a book for 50 million dollars, a book? Can you imagine? Joe Biden wouldn't of gotten $20, so dumb. I got the most votes, ever, can you believe that?"*
That's my point. I don't believe he sold it to the Russians. I can absolutely believe that his actions directly lead to being aquired by foreign agents, or the Carpet King of Tampa.
When Trump hosted the KGB diplomats in the White House, when he confiscated his translators notes after his meeting with Putin, after he betrayed the Kurds, the media would ask, "Why did Trump do this?"
There were always a range of possible reasons, but only one that explained them all with perfect sense. I suggest everyone read American Kompromat by Craig Unger. There is a trail of circumstantial evidence Trump has been a Russian asset since at least 1986.
There is a piss tape
At this point, do you really think it will damage him?
The piss tape had a lot more than just the sex act. It was full of kompromat.
Still, at this point I can't really see it damaging him.
Republicans seem to be way way past caring about morality, ethics, or embarrassment of any kind.
If he enjoyed a prostate massage, that might do it. Never underestimate homophobia
If the description I've heard is correct (that he asked two prostitutes to pee on the bed because Obama slept in it once) there is probably going to be a lot of racism, the peeing itself which is gross, and let's face it the prostitutes were probably underage. I could see that hurting him, give the right is so obsessed with Epstein and grooming, but they've already waved every terrible thing he has done away so you're probably right. The right wouldn't care.
Rules for thee, not gonna make a fucking dent in how is followers perceive him.
The reveal of his goomba might.
The P in P-tape is pedophilia
He is known to have raped underage girls and pootin has the goods, just as likely through Epstein
why is that pig not in chains
Because those in power support this kind of behavior.
Republicans in power.
Redundant, given the current state of things, sadly.
Correction. They support your outrage. They want it to become a shit show so you won't pay attention to the dozen of things they should be doing. Or working for the people. This kind of thing just makes certain decisions that seem less important get passed or neglected.
May have? It would be more surprising news if he didn't.
Business is business, isn’t that what he says? Business as usual for a bloke who keeps top secret documents in his spare bathroom.
May have? This guy would sell his own daughter if he could. And I'm not eve talking about the one whose name he doesn't know, I'm talking about the one he wants to fuck.
It's obvious that Trump sold out US intelligence assets across the world, leading to major setbacks in our intel community and the deaths of multiple people, so if this is true... will it make any difference? At all? Trump could come out and declare himself a vassal of the New Russian Empire and his followers would still lick his boots, and 'moderates' would say "Well, what about the DEMONRATS"
They, in fact, do talk up Russia as though it is some free speech, all the guns you want, libertarian paradise. It's incredible to see.
all the guns you want
More, even. Now get out there on the front line, maggot.
Fucking duh. Why else would he have taken a fucking truckload of classified docs?
Oh so she just learned that he may have sold a binder? She wasn't just holding onto this little pearl in order to sell another book was she? Any of Trump's circle, even his ostensibly "nice" niece Mary, is just an opportunist looking to cash in on the chaos.
Newsweek is trash. this is clickbait.
Oh thank goodness there is no merit to this headline. Oh wait, it is still a plausible situation no matter where you read the headline. Nevermind.
Damn, we've lowered the bar for journalism to plausible?
Have you been paying attention to the journalism industry lately? We're lucky to get "plausible" half the time.
Is the headline false? I think Mary trump said those words. I'd love to hear why you think they faked this quote.
I mean, you can read the article. I don't see that quote anywhere.
But you also kind of implied "it's fine if it's not true since it's plausible" that's more what I was commenting on
"One of those possibilities was that the documents inside the binder "were sold or given to Russia," according to her blog post. "
-the article I didn't read, quoting Mary trump's blog
So she at least typed this distinct, concise thought.
I said it was plausible because they had found a BOATLOAD of classified docs in trump's possession after he was out of office. Considering this binder the quote is about has not been recovered in any of the raids they performed and with the truth about trump's financial situation coming to light I can picture a means, motive and opportunity. So sure, 'plausible' is the best term I can think of until more solid evidence is presented.
Ha shit, one of those ads must have popped up and made me jump that paragraph or something. I really did read it and didn't see that the first time through
Man what is up with Republicans and their binders?
Where the fuck are all your patriots on this one?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The binder in question contained raw intelligence that the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies collected on Russia's alleged election interference in 2016, when Trump beat his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for the presidency, among other documents, according to Reuters who spoke with a source familiar with the matter.
"Let me put it this way, if the government ever had evidence Donald Trump purposely handed classified info to a hostile power, he would never see the light of day again," she wrote, who also added that the documents could have also been destroyed, lost, or kept by someone.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung told Newsweek in a Saturday email that it is "unprofessional" to ask if the binder was sold to Russia.
Trump wanted to declassify materials in the binder related to the FBI's investigation into Russia's alleged election interference, according to the source.
A federal court document filed in August by journalist John Solomon, who Trump appointed to be a representative authorized to access his presidential records in the National Archives, gives some insight into who had their hands on the missing binder.
On January 19, 2021, just one day before Trump left office, Meadows invited Solomon to the White House to review declassified pages and discuss its public release, according to the court document.
The original article contains 747 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Please fucking let it be so and soooo public([ly]
Do You thing this would change his ratings?
The only ratings I care about with regard to Donald Trump:
Maximum Security
0 Decibels
6 feet under (preferablyest)
his genuine leaked Wharton grades + sample submission
I already assumed this had happened.
Oh geeze, Trump might have done X very bad thing, claims family member with a grudge with 0 actual information. In my personal news, I might sacrifice goats to worship Satan, so claims my religious aunt who recently discovered I'm not religious.
This is trashy clickbait, Der Orangenführer is an un-American traitor and his crimes need no embellishment.
Agreed. I despise Trump but we can hold ourselves to a higher standard than getting whipped into a frenzy when someone with a personal vendetta writes a blog post with no new information.
Some key info here:
The whereabouts of the binder are currently unknown as it went missing during the last days of Trump's presidency, Reuters' source said.
If he sold it during his presidency, that would have been legal since he had the power to do that at the time.
If he sold it after, he should be locked up since he no longer had the authority to pass on that info.
Most likely I think he just took the documents and burned it since it contains information that the U.S. and "(NATO) allies collected on Russia's alleged election interference in 2016, when Trump beat his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for the presidency, among other documents."
Even if he sold it during his presidency, that wouldn’t make the money his. It would need to be documented and delivered through the proper channels, with receipts and confirmations. There is no way it would be legal for a president to sell classsified information and individually profit from it.
” There is no evidence showing that Trump sold anything to Russia. Trump's critics have long accused him of working with Russia, but various investigations have not confirmed that.”
EDIT- ROFL @ all the downvotes by all the ignorant knuckleheads that think that their definition of justice overrides simple logic. She has no evidence to support this. It says so in the article. Which is what I quoted. It’s right fucking there. Yet everyone here has come to the conclusion that it MUST have happened. It couldn’t have NOT happened. Despite no evidence….
and those same people are crying about how Trump isn’t following the rules of the law?
Imagine if we persecuted him based on what she said. Yeah. Wet dream, right?
Just remember. To live in a worked where we persecute based on no evidence, you have to accept it both ways.
It's easy to not see the ocean at the beach when you bury your head in the sand.
As much as I'd like to see this shit stain go down, op is right. Where's the evidence? I've seen it speculated for a long while, and I dont doubt it for a second, but I do think this would have been jumped on long before we heard about it if it were irrefutable. To blindly.downvote this and and be a chicken shit the same way the right says "do your research" is not how you should aim to operate.
Thank you for this comment. You made me realize that I was being a dick earlier. In the interest of posterity, I left up the asshole shit I said earlier and made a new, actually civil response.
To add further to the discussion, one thing I didn't mention in my other response is that different standards of veracity are being applied here. This isn't a court of law, the article posted even qualifies the statements as being claimed by Mary Trump. Note the words "may have" and "Mary Trump claims" in the title.
So to go ahead and demand concrete evidence and spout "innocent until proven guilty" is just ridiculous.
You know what, I was too, so sorry homie. Got anything I can read up on regarding this? I think it's important that if we're gonna have trump in our face like this, at the very least if we give him publicity, it should be accompied by with aolid, easy to share reasons to get out and vote against him as well as help others do the same. Selling state secrets is in a whole other ballgame of denger compared to the other heinous shit this dude has normalized in our country imo.
Thank you, I appreciate you.
I used to have a site bookmarked that kept track of the terrible shit this guy did, but I no longer have that laptop. If I can find it again I'll message it to you. Regarding this current, specific situation, there's already an established pattern of his attitude regarding state secrets.
Likewise. I've seen that as well, regarding him keeping shit around, lying about it, volunteering info (sat imaging, nuclear sub details, etc.) it would not surprise me one bit if he's sold secrets to Russia or the Saudis.
Please do if you find some more deets
So…. Someone with zero proof to back up their claim is someone to be believed 100% without doubt?
Has no one explained to you how these things work?
I think the dude is a despicable piece of shit- but when we start holding people’s feet to the fire just because someone thinks they may have done something with no proof to back it up-
You may as well just elect him. Because you’re basically living in the world he wants anyway.
Personally, I’ll be holding out for concrete evidence instead of making a fool of myself online.
This is a more civil response, in the interest of genuine discussion. I was a drunk asshole that first time around and you didn't deserve that.
Ok, first and foremost, I admit that I don't have direct evidence of him doing that exact thing. I'll also admit that I'm not even going to bother looking for any, because it doesn't change my original point anyways, which is this:
It's foolish to assume there's zero evidence when there's such a clear cut pattern of behavior. There's Modus Operandi.
We're talking about someone who is infamously corrupt. He's been impeached twice. He's on the hook for almost 100 convictions. It's been established in court that he's committed tons of fraud. There's a plethora of record of him being disingenuous, deceitful, and carries an absolute disregard for the law.
It's so egregious that anyone questioning this pattern of behavior must be either amazingly ignorant of current events or simply arguing in bad faith. Which is something trolls actively do.
Now, I'm not a prosecutor trying to charge of him of this specific crime. I'm not even trying assert it's genuine validity. This is a post on a website. I don't need the same level of certainty as a jury would, since I'm not in actively making that case.
What I AM saying is that it's either ridiculously ignorant or maliciously disingenuous to apply the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in this discussion. There's a huge enough pattern of behavior to give this some plausibility.
Is that equivalent to concrete evidence of this specific crime? Again, no. But to sit there and argue innocence when there's such a clear pattern of behavior is insultingly disingenuous.
There you go, a fair response.
I wasn’t arguing innocence. I was simply saying the court of public opinion should remain silent until the opinions are justified.
But why the double standard? He's certainly not staying silent, even with all the gag orders.
That doesn’t make it right for others. And there is no double-standard. The point is- there is no proof. There’s enough to hang him on. Making shit up is only diluting the waters and giving them an argument of doubt.
That doesn’t make it right for others. And there is no double-standard.
Fair point, assuming that you're acknowledging that his accusations are also not right.
The point is- there is no proof.
Can you claim that with legitimate certainty though? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And that's still not accounting for the evidence of all the other similar terrible things he's done. Again, Modus Operandi.
Cause someone is a shit person, doesn’t mean they’re guilty of evening you can throw at them. There’s a reason for the concept of innocence until proven guilty. It’s what separates us from tyrants. And because they do it- isn’t sufficient reason for us to do it.
Best to wait it out and see how it unfolds.
That's a great point. Thanks for the civil discussion.
You stopped being worth listening to when you presupposed that there's zero proof. Goodbye.
Edit: this was a douchy thing to say. I'm leaving it up for posterity.
So show proof or shut on up, chucklefuck.
So… where’s the proof? Go ahead. Point it out where there’s factual evidence of what she’s claiming.
I’ll wait right here.
Go ahead and wait. I owe you nothing. I have no incentive to indulge bad faith discussion. Cheers!
Edit: this was a douchy thing to say. I'm leaving it up for posterity.
Exactly what I thought. Thanks for playing.
You know what, you have a valid point. I was also rude to you earlier and for that I apologize. So, in the interest of good faith discussion, I'll provide a proper reply to one of your comments. One moments, please.
Much respect to you man. Thank you.
It's true that there isn't evidence that he sold anything, but let's look at what we do know:
The whereabouts of the binder are currently unknown as it went missing during the last days of Trump's presidency, Reuters' source said.
The info in the binder:
The binder in question contained raw intelligence that the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies collected on Russia's alleged election interference in 2016, when Trump beat his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for the presidency, among other documents, according to Reuters who spoke with a source familiar with the matter.
Trump would be very high on that suspect list although, in my mind, the likely conclusion of him taking it is that those documents were destroyed rather than sold.
I would counter that, given the timeline and information, it's unlikely that anyone else would want to take those documents.
Fair and likely but Mary doesn’t fucking know anything.
True, but these are not the words of innocent men.
It sounds like Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung also has no clue, but he's seen this one enough times to know that his outright denial would probably be contradicted by Trump within the week.
Ah, the ol' Criminal reverse burden/onus of proof. Counter with the old motherly trick, why might I have reason to even need to bring this up with you...
What would Mary do/There's something off about Mary...
It sounds like this story originated with Trump to create a fake news story to distract from the real news of his court cases.
I don’t think a spokesman would know one way or another.
It’s depressing that question is also applicable to the Biden impeachment hearings.
It's applicable, but it's also not being used because Biden didn't do anything. You don't say it's unprofessional to ask the question and then ask what proof do you have, especially as a spokesperson. It's 'how to be ridiculous and look like you did it 101'.
This whole binder story smells like the kind of news stories we were fed during the early years of his presidency. It's so 2017, throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
We don't need any new controversies. We need to see the felonies that have already been charged be prosecuted intelligently and effectively.
Yea, this isn’t news
Yeah, I don't believe it, but only because he's too incompetent to have kept that kind of high treason a secret.
I absolutely would believe that he kept it with his poop magazines and it was stolen, or copied, by the Carpet King of Tampa, or a foreign intelligence asset. Either one is just as likely.
He's honestly stupid enough that he'd be bragging about the money he made from the sale if he did sell it
That's my point. I don't believe he sold it to the Russians. I can absolutely believe that his actions directly lead to being aquired by foreign agents, or the Carpet King of Tampa.
When Trump hosted the KGB diplomats in the White House, when he confiscated his translators notes after his meeting with Putin, after he betrayed the Kurds, the media would ask, "Why did Trump do this?"
There were always a range of possible reasons, but only one that explained them all with perfect sense. I suggest everyone read American Kompromat by Craig Unger. There is a trail of circumstantial evidence Trump has been a Russian asset since at least 1986.
There is a piss tape
At this point, do you really think it will damage him?
The piss tape had a lot more than just the sex act. It was full of kompromat.
Still, at this point I can't really see it damaging him.
Republicans seem to be way way past caring about morality, ethics, or embarrassment of any kind.
If he enjoyed a prostate massage, that might do it. Never underestimate homophobia
If the description I've heard is correct (that he asked two prostitutes to pee on the bed because Obama slept in it once) there is probably going to be a lot of racism, the peeing itself which is gross, and let's face it the prostitutes were probably underage. I could see that hurting him, give the right is so obsessed with Epstein and grooming, but they've already waved every terrible thing he has done away so you're probably right. The right wouldn't care.
Rules for thee, not gonna make a fucking dent in how is followers perceive him.
The reveal of his goomba might.
The P in P-tape is pedophilia
He is known to have raped underage girls and pootin has the goods, just as likely through Epstein
why is that pig not in chains
Because those in power support this kind of behavior.
Republicans in power.
Redundant, given the current state of things, sadly.
Correction. They support your outrage. They want it to become a shit show so you won't pay attention to the dozen of things they should be doing. Or working for the people. This kind of thing just makes certain decisions that seem less important get passed or neglected.
May have? It would be more surprising news if he didn't.
Business is business, isn’t that what he says? Business as usual for a bloke who keeps top secret documents in his spare bathroom.
May have? This guy would sell his own daughter if he could. And I'm not eve talking about the one whose name he doesn't know, I'm talking about the one he wants to fuck.
It's obvious that Trump sold out US intelligence assets across the world, leading to major setbacks in our intel community and the deaths of multiple people, so if this is true... will it make any difference? At all? Trump could come out and declare himself a vassal of the New Russian Empire and his followers would still lick his boots, and 'moderates' would say "Well, what about the DEMONRATS"
They, in fact, do talk up Russia as though it is some free speech, all the guns you want, libertarian paradise. It's incredible to see.
More, even. Now get out there on the front line, maggot.
Fucking duh. Why else would he have taken a fucking truckload of classified docs?
Oh so she just learned that he may have sold a binder? She wasn't just holding onto this little pearl in order to sell another book was she? Any of Trump's circle, even his ostensibly "nice" niece Mary, is just an opportunist looking to cash in on the chaos.
Newsweek is trash. this is clickbait.
Oh thank goodness there is no merit to this headline. Oh wait, it is still a plausible situation no matter where you read the headline. Nevermind.
Damn, we've lowered the bar for journalism to plausible?
Have you been paying attention to the journalism industry lately? We're lucky to get "plausible" half the time.
Is the headline false? I think Mary trump said those words. I'd love to hear why you think they faked this quote.
I mean, you can read the article. I don't see that quote anywhere.
But you also kind of implied "it's fine if it's not true since it's plausible" that's more what I was commenting on
"One of those possibilities was that the documents inside the binder "were sold or given to Russia," according to her blog post. "
-the article I didn't read, quoting Mary trump's blog
So she at least typed this distinct, concise thought. I said it was plausible because they had found a BOATLOAD of classified docs in trump's possession after he was out of office. Considering this binder the quote is about has not been recovered in any of the raids they performed and with the truth about trump's financial situation coming to light I can picture a means, motive and opportunity. So sure, 'plausible' is the best term I can think of until more solid evidence is presented.
Ha shit, one of those ads must have popped up and made me jump that paragraph or something. I really did read it and didn't see that the first time through
Man what is up with Republicans and their binders?
Where the fuck are all your patriots on this one?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The binder in question contained raw intelligence that the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies collected on Russia's alleged election interference in 2016, when Trump beat his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for the presidency, among other documents, according to Reuters who spoke with a source familiar with the matter.
"Let me put it this way, if the government ever had evidence Donald Trump purposely handed classified info to a hostile power, he would never see the light of day again," she wrote, who also added that the documents could have also been destroyed, lost, or kept by someone.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung told Newsweek in a Saturday email that it is "unprofessional" to ask if the binder was sold to Russia.
Trump wanted to declassify materials in the binder related to the FBI's investigation into Russia's alleged election interference, according to the source.
A federal court document filed in August by journalist John Solomon, who Trump appointed to be a representative authorized to access his presidential records in the National Archives, gives some insight into who had their hands on the missing binder.
On January 19, 2021, just one day before Trump left office, Meadows invited Solomon to the White House to review declassified pages and discuss its public release, according to the court document.
The original article contains 747 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Please fucking let it be so and soooo public([ly]
Do You thing this would change his ratings?
The only ratings I care about with regard to Donald Trump:
Maximum Security0 DecibelsI already assumed this had happened.
Oh geeze, Trump might have done X very bad thing, claims family member with a grudge with 0 actual information. In my personal news, I might sacrifice goats to worship Satan, so claims my religious aunt who recently discovered I'm not religious.
This is trashy clickbait, Der Orangenführer is an un-American traitor and his crimes need no embellishment.
Agreed. I despise Trump but we can hold ourselves to a higher standard than getting whipped into a frenzy when someone with a personal vendetta writes a blog post with no new information.
Some key info here:
If he sold it during his presidency, that would have been legal since he had the power to do that at the time.
If he sold it after, he should be locked up since he no longer had the authority to pass on that info.
Most likely I think he just took the documents and burned it since it contains information that the U.S. and "(NATO) allies collected on Russia's alleged election interference in 2016, when Trump beat his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for the presidency, among other documents."
Even if he sold it during his presidency, that wouldn’t make the money his. It would need to be documented and delivered through the proper channels, with receipts and confirmations. There is no way it would be legal for a president to sell classsified information and individually profit from it.
” There is no evidence showing that Trump sold anything to Russia. Trump's critics have long accused him of working with Russia, but various investigations have not confirmed that.”
EDIT- ROFL @ all the downvotes by all the ignorant knuckleheads that think that their definition of justice overrides simple logic. She has no evidence to support this. It says so in the article. Which is what I quoted. It’s right fucking there. Yet everyone here has come to the conclusion that it MUST have happened. It couldn’t have NOT happened. Despite no evidence….
and those same people are crying about how Trump isn’t following the rules of the law?
Imagine if we persecuted him based on what she said. Yeah. Wet dream, right?
Just remember. To live in a worked where we persecute based on no evidence, you have to accept it both ways.
It's easy to not see the ocean at the beach when you bury your head in the sand.
As much as I'd like to see this shit stain go down, op is right. Where's the evidence? I've seen it speculated for a long while, and I dont doubt it for a second, but I do think this would have been jumped on long before we heard about it if it were irrefutable. To blindly.downvote this and and be a chicken shit the same way the right says "do your research" is not how you should aim to operate.
Thank you for this comment. You made me realize that I was being a dick earlier. In the interest of posterity, I left up the asshole shit I said earlier and made a new, actually civil response.
To add further to the discussion, one thing I didn't mention in my other response is that different standards of veracity are being applied here. This isn't a court of law, the article posted even qualifies the statements as being claimed by Mary Trump. Note the words "may have" and "Mary Trump claims" in the title.
So to go ahead and demand concrete evidence and spout "innocent until proven guilty" is just ridiculous.
You know what, I was too, so sorry homie. Got anything I can read up on regarding this? I think it's important that if we're gonna have trump in our face like this, at the very least if we give him publicity, it should be accompied by with aolid, easy to share reasons to get out and vote against him as well as help others do the same. Selling state secrets is in a whole other ballgame of denger compared to the other heinous shit this dude has normalized in our country imo.
Thank you, I appreciate you.
I used to have a site bookmarked that kept track of the terrible shit this guy did, but I no longer have that laptop. If I can find it again I'll message it to you. Regarding this current, specific situation, there's already an established pattern of his attitude regarding state secrets.
Here's an article from last year with examples.
Likewise. I've seen that as well, regarding him keeping shit around, lying about it, volunteering info (sat imaging, nuclear sub details, etc.) it would not surprise me one bit if he's sold secrets to Russia or the Saudis.
Please do if you find some more deets
So…. Someone with zero proof to back up their claim is someone to be believed 100% without doubt?
Has no one explained to you how these things work?
I think the dude is a despicable piece of shit- but when we start holding people’s feet to the fire just because someone thinks they may have done something with no proof to back it up-
You may as well just elect him. Because you’re basically living in the world he wants anyway.
Personally, I’ll be holding out for concrete evidence instead of making a fool of myself online.
This is a more civil response, in the interest of genuine discussion. I was a drunk asshole that first time around and you didn't deserve that.
Ok, first and foremost, I admit that I don't have direct evidence of him doing that exact thing. I'll also admit that I'm not even going to bother looking for any, because it doesn't change my original point anyways, which is this:
It's foolish to assume there's zero evidence when there's such a clear cut pattern of behavior. There's Modus Operandi.
We're talking about someone who is infamously corrupt. He's been impeached twice. He's on the hook for almost 100 convictions. It's been established in court that he's committed tons of fraud. There's a plethora of record of him being disingenuous, deceitful, and carries an absolute disregard for the law.
It's so egregious that anyone questioning this pattern of behavior must be either amazingly ignorant of current events or simply arguing in bad faith. Which is something trolls actively do.
Now, I'm not a prosecutor trying to charge of him of this specific crime. I'm not even trying assert it's genuine validity. This is a post on a website. I don't need the same level of certainty as a jury would, since I'm not in actively making that case.
What I AM saying is that it's either ridiculously ignorant or maliciously disingenuous to apply the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in this discussion. There's a huge enough pattern of behavior to give this some plausibility.
Is that equivalent to concrete evidence of this specific crime? Again, no. But to sit there and argue innocence when there's such a clear pattern of behavior is insultingly disingenuous.
There you go, a fair response.
I wasn’t arguing innocence. I was simply saying the court of public opinion should remain silent until the opinions are justified.
But why the double standard? He's certainly not staying silent, even with all the gag orders.
That doesn’t make it right for others. And there is no double-standard. The point is- there is no proof. There’s enough to hang him on. Making shit up is only diluting the waters and giving them an argument of doubt.
Fair point, assuming that you're acknowledging that his accusations are also not right.
Can you claim that with legitimate certainty though? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And that's still not accounting for the evidence of all the other similar terrible things he's done. Again, Modus Operandi.
Cause someone is a shit person, doesn’t mean they’re guilty of evening you can throw at them. There’s a reason for the concept of innocence until proven guilty. It’s what separates us from tyrants. And because they do it- isn’t sufficient reason for us to do it.
Best to wait it out and see how it unfolds.
That's a great point. Thanks for the civil discussion.
You stopped being worth listening to when you presupposed that there's zero proof. Goodbye.Edit: this was a douchy thing to say. I'm leaving it up for posterity.
So show proof or shut on up, chucklefuck.
So… where’s the proof? Go ahead. Point it out where there’s factual evidence of what she’s claiming.
I’ll wait right here.
Go ahead and wait. I owe you nothing. I have no incentive to indulge bad faith discussion. Cheers!Edit: this was a douchy thing to say. I'm leaving it up for posterity.
Exactly what I thought. Thanks for playing.
You know what, you have a valid point. I was also rude to you earlier and for that I apologize. So, in the interest of good faith discussion, I'll provide a proper reply to one of your comments. One moments, please.
Much respect to you man. Thank you.
It's true that there isn't evidence that he sold anything, but let's look at what we do know:
The info in the binder:
Trump would be very high on that suspect list although, in my mind, the likely conclusion of him taking it is that those documents were destroyed rather than sold.
I would counter that, given the timeline and information, it's unlikely that anyone else would want to take those documents.