Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

The infamous FD-1023 form: Biden $10M bribe file released: Burisma chief said he was ‘coerced’ to pay Joe, ‘stupid’ Hunter in bombshell allegations
Crime by HatetheSwamp     July 20, 2023 3:47 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (27 comments) [509 views]


So we're in the market for a house...
Nonprofit by Ponderer     February 4, 2024 6:09 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (36 comments) [414 views]


Clueless Sen. Tuberville 'running in circles' in response to IVF question
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 23, 2024 12:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [8 views]


Tulsi Gabbard is a transformative political leader... speaking at EFFIN CPAC
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 23, 2024 10:04 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [37 views]


Joe Manchin interview: Electing Trump would be very detrimental to US, world. Biden too liberal now.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 22, 2024 12:48 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (2 comments) [60 views]


THE DRINKS ARE ON ME, BOYS!!!
Alcoholic Beverages by Ponderer     February 21, 2024 6:50 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments) [141 views]


Matt Gaetz says his GOP colleagues pushing the now indicted "highly credible confidential" source were a little "over-sauced".
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 22, 2024 10:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (3 comments) [56 views]


What to expect from Jim Biden's testimony before the House Oversight Committee...
Government by HatetheSwamp     February 21, 2024 8:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (32 comments) [299 views]


To set the record straight, GOPs are stoked for impeachment after Jim Biden's lies under oath
Crime by HatetheSwamp     February 22, 2024 6:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [21 views]


The truth about Alexander Smirnov and the GOP push to impeach the Doddering Old Fool
Politics by HatetheSwamp     February 22, 2024 6:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [7 views]


Politics selectors, pages, etc.
For those who want to know the facts.
By islander
June 12, 2023 4:41 am
Category: Politics

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


Teri Kanefield does it again. For anyone who wants to have a good understanding of Trump's indictment, Teri brings us up to date with all the facts in her latest blog. It's an excellent read as usual !!

"As I’m sure everyone knows by now, Trump and his valet Walt Nauta have been indicted. If you are keeping score, this is Trump’s second indictment and his first federal indictment. We are expecting indictments from Georgia later this summer, and the J6 investigation at some point but nobody knows when cont... *

* TK


Cited and related links:

  1. terikanefield.com
  2. int.nyt.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "For those who want to know the facts.":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 4:48 am

    I was wondering about Heather and Teri...and...you, too, isle. It's been a while. I was becoming concerned that your hearts might have exploded from experiencing multiple political orgasms.

    Glad you checked in.


  2. by islander on June 12, 2023 6:32 am

    After reading the indictment It looks JDP has been extremely meticulous and thorough in their investigation. I think the chances for a conviction are excellent and another thing the indictment makes clear is the fallacy of the Republicans whataboutism using false equivalencies using Biden and Pence as examples. But whether Trump will be physically incarcerated is very uncertain...I'm not sure how that would work...For instance, would he still have Secret Service protection to which former presidents are entitled while in prison...? It's going to be interesting.

    read the indictment here:
    int.nyt.com


  3. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 7:30 am

    Just curious, isle. What's the Whataboutism with the Former Truck Driver? And, Whataboutism with Pence. Link to some.


  4. by Indy! on June 12, 2023 7:58 am
    Are you guys talking about Mike Pence in these arguments?


  5. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 8:03 am

    Yeah. Mike Pence. They are.


  6. by Ponderer on June 12, 2023 8:03 am

    Yes, Indy!. Hate thinks that he should be indicted right along with Biden.

    Apparently.


  7. by islander on June 12, 2023 8:04 am

    The classified documents that Trump refused to turn over contained information about defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack;and plans for possible retaliation in response to foreign attack.

    The indictment states: “The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources, and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.”





  8. by islander on June 12, 2023 8:12 am

    And of course, the indictment shows, with recorded conversations, that Trump did indeed disclose the content of these classified documents to unauthorized persons.


  9. by Indy! on June 12, 2023 8:27 am
    Is the GOP concerned Mike Pence might be a serious challenger to Trump? Is that the angle? Because that would be pretty funny.

    So far as Islander's post, while it does seem kind of serious that Trump was handling documents that outlined our defense plans - I doubt any country actually needs that information considering we couldn't even win the war against the Taliban. If Biden ever gets this WWIII thing going, China is probably just going to shut off our power and let us destroy ourselves from the inside.


  10. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 9:49 am

    Indy!

    I monitor right-wing media fairly carefully. As far as I know, the only people saying that GOPs think Pence should be indicted are, as you'd say, Blue MAGAs. I'm boycotting Fox, so I may have missed something, but I'm not hearing an outcry on the right for Pence to be indicted.

    From everything that is known, the Former Truck Driver was swiping classified documents as a Senator...FOR DECADES, which he had no right to possess. GOPs are just waiting for his Special Counsel to announce that Clouseau won't be charged. Then all heck'll explode over on the right.


  11. by Ponderer on June 12, 2023 2:15 pm

    "I monitor right-wing media fairly carefully." -Hate


    (He means he watches it)


  12. by Ponderer on June 12, 2023 2:20 pm

    "From everything that is known," -Hate





    To you, Bill.

    From everything that is known to you.





    Which has already been well established is worse than nothing.


  13. by Ponderer on June 12, 2023 2:22 pm

    "GOPs are just waiting for his Special Counsel to announce that Clouseau won't be charged. Then all heck'll explode over on the right." -Hate

    Wanna bet...? I'll give you three to one odds.....



  14. by Indy! on June 12, 2023 2:44 pm
    Can we dream the dream and hope that indicting Trump will be the icebreaker that brings down ALL the corrupt clowns in DC? I don't know who the "Former Truck Driver" is - but anyone who broke the law should be prosecuted and I don't care who that includes as long they broke the law. We need to clean up the place before this country is fading memory.


  15. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 4:05 pm

    po,

    Are you claiming to know that none of the classified documents in Joe's possession were from his more than 30 years in the Senate?


  16. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 4:08 pm

    po,

    Are you betting that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" will actually be charged with crimes for swiping classified documents or that he'll be spared but no one will care?


  17. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 4:31 pm

    Our current President has claimed several times to have driven a truck.

    politifact.com
    nypost.com
    View Video


  18. by Curt_Anderson on June 12, 2023 4:48 pm
    Thanks for sharing, HtS.

    According to politifact:
    [Biden] brought it up in July 2021 when he toured a Mack Truck facility in Pennsylvania. That time, he qualified his claim that he "used to drive an 18-wheeler," noting he "got to" drive one. [In] 1973, when, as a senator, he rode along on a 536-mile tractor-trailer trip from Delaware to Ohio.

    [Biden] was given the chance to drive one at some point. His reference to a summer job suggests that he was referring to his time as a bus driver, not a truck driver.

    Driving a truck is a lot like murderer. If somebody asks “are you a murderer?”, you are expected to answer “yes” even though you might’ve only murdered one person one time in one brief episode. It’s not like you’re a career criminal or a serial murderer.


  19. by Indy! on June 12, 2023 6:25 pm
    Thought it might be Trump:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2017/mar/23/donald-trump-18-wheeler-big-rig-truck-pictures


  20. by oldedude on June 12, 2023 7:29 pm
    [Biden] was given the chance to drive one at some point. His reference to a summer job suggests that he was referring to his time as a bus driver, not a truck driver.
    So he either can't remember, or is making shit up. Please choose between the two. This is an A. he can't keep his thoughts straight, or B. he's making his shit up.

    Driving a truck is a lot like murderer. If somebody asks “are you a murderer?”, you are expected to answer “yes” even though you might’ve only murdered one person one time in one brief episode. It’s not like you’re a career criminal or a serial murderer.

    You took a fukking human life NOT in defense of your life. You did it out of joy! or the satisfaction and power of murdering someone. You're a piece of shit and nothing more. Once, or 13 times. Kinda like the rape tree, huh? If you raped a woman by knife point once, you should be excused. And in your scenario, you use a knife in public to slit her throat and murder her (with her going through death throughs) while you ejaculate in her is okay if you only do it once? Gotcha. Dude, you're fucked up. I've seen sociopaths, and you're absolutely out there. Along with the worst of them.



  21. by oldedude on June 12, 2023 7:29 pm
    [Biden] was given the chance to drive one at some point. His reference to a summer job suggests that he was referring to his time as a bus driver, not a truck driver.
    So he either can't remember, or is making shit up. Please choose between the two. This is an A. he can't keep his thoughts straight, or B. he's making his shit up.

    Driving a truck is a lot like murderer. If somebody asks “are you a murderer?”, you are expected to answer “yes” even though you might’ve only murdered one person one time in one brief episode. It’s not like you’re a career criminal or a serial murderer.

    You took a fukking human life NOT in defense of your life. You did it out of joy! or the satisfaction and power of murdering someone. You're a piece of shit and nothing more. Once, or 13 times. Kinda like the rape tree, huh? If you raped a woman by knife point once, you should be excused. And in your scenario, you use a knife in public to slit her throat and murder her (with her going through death throughs) while you ejaculate in her is okay if you only do it once? Gotcha. Dude, you're fucked up. I've seen sociopaths, and you're absolutely out there. Along with the worst of them.



  22. by islander on June 13, 2023 5:36 am

    This is for those who want to know. Not everybody wants to know, so this is obviously not for them.

    Click the link to read Part Two of Teri's excellent and fact filled analysis of the currant state of Trump's indictment !
    terikanefield.com


  23. by HatetheSwamp on June 13, 2023 6:37 am

    I do want to know...how deranged Trump hate operates.


  24. by Curt_Anderson on June 13, 2023 7:30 am
    Chris Christie told Anderson Cooper, "It is a very tight, very detailed, evidence-laden indictment, and the conduct in there is awful."

    The former prosecutor continued:

    "What I can tell you, for sure I know about that indictment, is there’s probably about a third of the evidence they actually have is in that indictment. There will guaranteed be a lot more. When you’re a prosecutor, you never put every card on the table before the trial."


  25. by HatetheSwamp on June 13, 2023 7:59 am

    Curt,

    Are you suggesting that Christie, Trump's opponent for the GOP nomination, is offering an objective opinion?


  26. by Curt_Anderson on June 13, 2023 8:08 am
    Objective or not, he is correct about the evidence we’ve already seen, and I suspect he knows what he’s talking about when he said prosecutors don’t show all their cards in the indictment.


  27. by HatetheSwamp on June 13, 2023 8:22 am

    Somehow I think that your agreement with Christie has more to do with your hate for Trump than your own legal training and your honest assessment of the ways the indictment may be vulnerable to a vigorous defense mounted by a skilled advocate.

    I continue to believe that, in the end, the telling issue will be, as Chuck Grassley said on the Senate floor yesterday that "Two standards of justice in this country will turn our constitutional Republic upside down." Trump's being treated differently than Hillary was and Biden is. Many people already believe that and more will as that argument will be made in the future.

    selectsmart.com


  28. by Ponderer on June 13, 2023 12:22 pm

    "po, Are you claiming to know that none of the classified documents in Joe's possession were from his more than 30 years in the Senate?" -Hate

    No. I was responding to this statement of yours...:

    "GOPs are just waiting for his Special Counsel to announce that Clouseau won't be charged. Then all heck'll explode over on the right." -Hate

    ...and asked you if you cared to wager on the eventual accuracy of your prognostication.

    I'm still willing to give you three to one odds btw.



  29. by HatetheSwamp on June 13, 2023 12:27 pm

    No. I asked you which part of your statement you're will to wager on. I am awaiting your clarification.


  30. by HatetheSwamp on June 13, 2023 1:31 pm

    Apparently, Olbermann is as misinformed and deluded as are all the progressive SwampLovers on SS. Baha baha.

    Keith Olbermann hammered after claiming Hillary Clinton team never destroyed gov't devices: 'Hallucinating'

    Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann was publicly fact-checked after he mocked a Republican congresswoman for claiming that failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign previously destroyed government devices.

    "Hillary Clinton used a hammer to destroy evidence of a private e-mail server and classified information on that server and was never indicted. The same standard should apply to everyone, including Donald Trump," Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C. tweeted Sunday.

    The claim drew a sharp response from Olbermann, who suggested that the congresswoman was not in the proper mental state to understand reality.

    "You know that didn't happen, right? Are you ok? You seem to have been hallucinating a lot lately," Olbermann told Mace.

    But Olbermann was subsequently fact-checked on Twitter by Community Notes, which shared three articles from CNN, Business Insider and Snopes that corroborated Mace’s tweet.

    Mace took the opportunity to declare victory in the argument with Olbermann. "Facts are a funny thing,"...


    Niiiiiice!
    foxnews.com


  31. by Curt_Anderson on June 13, 2023 2:26 pm
    Apparently, Nancy Mace did not strictly adhere to the facts in her statement about Hillary Clinton.

    According to Snopes: What's False
    Hillary Clinton did not personally destroy her phone with a hammer.
    snopes.com


  32. by HatetheSwamp on June 13, 2023 2:55 pm

    Closer than Keith


  33. by oldedude on June 13, 2023 3:11 pm
    Hillary Clinton did not personally destroy her phone with a hammer.

    I don't give a shit if SHE did it, it was done by her minions. The order came from her/her underlings.

    Curt- that is a true weasel statement. I didn't kill my husband. (what she didn't say) I paid someone to murder my husband.


  34. by Curt_Anderson on June 13, 2023 3:20 pm
    She was “closer”? Maybe that sort of thinking is acceptable among Republicans. But Nancy Mace was wrong. Keith Olbermann was right to call her to say that did not happen. A statement is either factual or is not: her statement does not factual.


  35. by oldedude on June 13, 2023 3:31 pm
    But you don't believe that when pedojoe is under fire and he flat out lies about it, right?
    Your double standards are sickening. I've used the exact logic with you, and you pull out some weasel statement to lie about what you said, that you "meant" this or that. bullsht.


  36. by HatetheSwamp on June 14, 2023 5:39 am

    Y'know this is typical Clinton-ism. Is Curt that much of a Bonehead to think that Hillary didn't orchestrate the killing of that computer?

    See. That's what I don't get about Curt. I've said this before. Is the Good German-ism real? Or, is it genuine imbicility and immortality?

    Let me know what you think.


  37. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 7:02 am
    It really is hard for me to believe anyone that would maybesortakinda call themselves close to looking at any news whatsoever would say that. It comes from knowing absolutely nothing about the subject.
    Unless it's from "der Deutscher Sozialist Zeitung."

    FBI: Clinton staff destroyed devices with hammersCNN's Evan Perez confirms Trump campaign senior adviser Boris Epshteyn's claim that Hillary Clinton staffers destroyed her previous mobile devices using hammers.

    Watch CNN anchor’s disbelief that Clinton aides destroyed phones with hammer

    Buck: ‘I won’t support a convicted felon for the White House’
    Hillary Clinton: Republicans defending Trump ‘refuse to engage with the facts’,
    aides destroyed her phones with a hammer.

    {mosads}When Boris Epshteyn, an adviser to Donald Trump, told her on air that the Democratic nominee’s aides destroyed her BlackBerries with hammers, Baldwin interrupted him to ask a reporter to fact-check that statement.

    “Evan, hold on, can you fact-check?” Baldwin asked reporter Evan Perez on “CNN Newsroom” on Friday. “Evan Perez? Hammers? Fact-check that for me, on the fly.”

    “Yes they did, Brooke.” Perez responded. “As he mentioned, there were 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads that the FBI said that in some way were used with her private email server, and they did in some cases just destroy them with hammers when they were done using them.”

    cnn.com
    thehill.com


  38. by Curt_Anderson on June 14, 2023 7:51 am
    That Hillary Clinton’s staff reportedly took a hammer to her old phones was probably standard operating procedure that had nothing to do with any investigation. For reasons of privacy and security, I drill holes through our old hard drives before I dispose of them.

    There is a good reason to think that Donald Trump mishandled documents in ways worse than Hillary Clinton even thought of. Certainly the indictment against him indicates that he was highly reckless. So for all those people who are part of the “lock her up” crowd, where are they in insisting that Donald Trump serve prison time?


  39. by HatetheSwamp on June 14, 2023 7:54 am

    So, OD. Which is Curt? Boneheaded or immoral?


  40. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 10:05 am
    That Hillary Clinton’s staff reportedly took a hammer to her old phones was probably standard operating procedure that had nothing to do with any investigation. For reasons of privacy and security, I drill holes through our old hard drives before I dispose of them.

    wow... really, that's all I can say. Did you ever have a phone for work? Did they ever change those phones out for newer ones? Did you purposefully run those phones over in your car so the computer geeks couldn't find the pictures of naked kids on your phone?

    1. It's destruction of government property. The ONLY people who can destroy electronic media are those with that specific position code. They usually work for the security department of each agency and MUST chart each item with the serial number (which lists the classification, person issued the phone, etcetcetc. For someone to take it upon themselves to destroy government property leads directly to the next paragraph.

    2. It's ALSO destruction of evidence.
    18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
    Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


    20x18= 360 years. AND the same goes for each email she destroyed regardless of the content. If it's done on a government computer, it's a government email. Period.

    Notice that doesn't mention "destruction of CLASSIFIED equipment, documents, etc. That's an additional law with extra time.


  41. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 10:16 am
    So, OD. Which is Curt? Boneheaded or immoral?

    Both? I mean, there's a sense he doesn't know what he's talking about. On the other hand, he routinely uses partial facts to conceal the law. Even if he didn't know about this, it's easy enough to look up instead of moving his head a bit and pulling some nonsense out of his....

    Perhaps amoral. Maybe like Dalmer, he really can't tell the difference. But if that were true, there wouldn't be that rigid and unquestionable adherence to his jackboots and brown uniform.

    So. We have a conundrum.


  42. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 10:19 am
    Sorry. Cite for 18 U.S. Code § 1519
    law.cornell.edu


  43. by Curt_Anderson on June 14, 2023 10:34 am
    "1. It's destruction of government property." ---OD

    Thanks for the information. It's good to know that Hillary did not destroy government property! The FBI called her personal mobile devices (aka cell phone) her "personal e-mail server(s)". Nancy Mace used the term "private e-mail server". I am sure we all agree that as a general rule, the government shouldn't be infringing on our personal property rights.

    I am also glad you shared the info on 18U.S.C. §§ 1519. Outrageous! Trump really ought to be in prison for that. That guy is a menace!

    "The indictment charges Trump with 31 alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. 793 for the willful retention of national defense information, along with one count each of conspiracy to obstruct justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512), withholding a document or record (18 U.S.C. 1512), corruptly concealing a document or record (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512), concealing a document in a federal investigation (18U.S.C. §§ 1519), scheme to conceal (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001) and making false statements and representations (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001)."

    forbes.com
    fbi.gov


  44. by HatetheSwamp on June 14, 2023 10:46 am

    "It depends what the meaning of destroy is." Baha


  45. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 11:37 am
    kind of like "it depends on your definition of "sex?"


  46. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 11:43 am
    I'm going to go with a stoopid jack-booted thug that can't/ won't read. The server may have been hers (although if I use mine for government use, it's the government's). THE PHONES WERE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY DUMBASS. They were issued by the government.

    And you're not saying crap about the impeding a federal investigation. by "Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

    So even IF it was hers, she destroyed evidence. I know that's okay in your book, but not okay with the law.

    You're just making yourself look really stoopid now. This is to the point of inane. You're arguing points that can't be supported in any reality whatsoever.


  47. by Curt_Anderson on June 14, 2023 11:56 am
    "You're arguing points that can't be supported in any reality whatsoever." --OD

    The reality is that Hillary was NOT convicted of any of the litany of crimes you've listed. Ipso facto, she is not guilty. On the other hand, Trump has been indicted for those same crimes that you accuse her of.

    Unless you believe that Trump is not a petty and vindictive sort of guy, explain why Hillary was not prosecuted by any of Trump's attorneys general if there was a good case to be made against her.


  48. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 12:23 pm
    The reality is that Hillary was NOT convicted of any of the litany of crimes you've listed.

    That has been the point all along. You argued that the steele dossier was "valid." That was after the FISA court found it was fraudulent and illegal. You argued it was valid after the FBI apologized because they used a fraudulent piece of illegal evidence. You still insisted it could be used. You honestly don't have a comprehension of this, do you? I stand by my earlier post. You're a sociopath that doesn't have the capability to have empathy. You have zero understanding of right and wrong. You have even less value and anyone with an "opinion." Your opinions are nothing more than what you're told to say. And you don't have the sense to see how stupid they are.


  49. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 12:32 pm
    Unless you believe that Trump is not a petty and vindictive sort of guy, explain why Hillary was not prosecuted by any of Trump's attorneys general if there was a good case to be made against her.

    Trumpster is petty and vindictive. That's not illegal. It isn't just trumpster that says you're full of shit. It's because it's the same FBI that used the steele dossier and lied to the courts about it. They knowingly fabricated evidence to take trumpster down. I know you still think the dossier is valid evidence, but the law, the FISA court, the FBI/DOJ disagree with you.

    So... The DOJ/FBI lied about trumpster (et al). Why would they charge hilclit when that's who funded the steele dossier (and they knew that)? Even when steele couldn't support any of his allegations, and they still used it? Then they used it several times for illegal search and seizures warrants.


  50. by HatetheSwamp on June 14, 2023 12:48 pm

    Trumpster is petty and vindictive. That's not illegal.

    That's the TDS speaking. To our progressive SwampLovers here, Trump should spend the rest of his life in the klink...just for being Trump. And, that's no illegal.


  51. by Curt_Anderson on June 14, 2023 12:49 pm
    OD, despite your erroneous use of quotation marks, I did NOT say the Steele Dossier was "valid".

    Here is what I did actually say in comment #17 of the link below.

    No, OD, it does not sound suspicious. Have you not heard the axiom “if you see something say something”? When the “something” seems credible law enforcement follows up. The dossier contained credible allegations that the FBI followed up on to confirm or dismiss. Among other people, the dossier implicated Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. That led to charges, and of course, both Stone and Manafort were pardoned by Trump.

    Lawfare reported "Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials."



    selectsmart.com


  52. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 1:23 pm
    No, OD, it does not sound suspicious. Have you not heard the axiom “if you see something say something”? When the “something” seems credible law enforcement follows up. The dossier contained credible allegations that the FBI followed up on to confirm or dismiss. Among other people, the dossier implicated Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. That led to charges, and of course, both Stone and Manafort were pardoned by Trump.

    Lawfare reported "Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials."


    Perhaps "pieces" of the dossier "may" have been "leads." By law, THEY ARE INADMISSIBLE. Could you use the evidence? ONLY if you found them out another way, and could prove it wasn't the dossier that lead to the evidence. PERIOD. BTW, you know that Muller also deep formatted his phones before turning them over, didn't you? So nothing could be used? Throw Muller out. It's as useless as teets on a boar. The evidence behind the dossier has been updated.

    You continue to turn a blind eye to the STANDARD IN US LAW. IF a piece of "evidence" is illegally used in an investigation. ALL evidence produced from the illegal act must be scrubbed. Period. End of every frigging story in the history of the 4th and 6th amendment, and Rule 16, which every state and the federal government use as the standard.

    So regardless of "a" shred of evidence may be valid, the dossier is the trunk of the poison tree and cannot be used. Period. End of story. That's what FEDERAL LAW SAYS.


  53. by Curt_Anderson on June 14, 2023 2:04 pm
    OD, have some mistaken notions about obtaining and excluding evidence. You have more than once referred to the “fruit of the poisonous tree”. Alone, the steel dossier may have been inadmissible evidence. An exception to the exclusionary rule involves an "independent source" for the evidence illegally obtained. This doctrine allows the admission of evidence that may have been obtained illegally by police if that same evidence was also obtained legally by another means.


  54. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 3:49 pm
    1. I'm don't "have some mistaken notions about obtaining and excluding evidence." I talked about this earlier, but apparently you didn't read. The main reason you don't get it is because it isn't used often. If you don't understand Rule 16, the 4th and 6th amendment and what they do, you're going to be lost in this. Thusly, your way lost. Can you do this? NOT from Rule 16 violations. You could, if you can show "how you got the information" (completely independent of the Poisonous tree) it can be admitted. You have to prove this in court and admit you had "issues" with you prosecution lying to the state about it's evidence. No one wants to do that. They'd rather have a mis-trial declared and go at it a different way. They fuckked up completely.

    This is the second time I've explained this. See above.


  55. by Indy! on June 15, 2023 12:05 pm
    PB, don't you understand by now these "investigations" are nothing more than a way to waste time so CONgress doesn't have to do anything to help the country? They investigated Hillary FOREVER - so they either found nothing or (more likely) they found plenty and gave her the protection from prosecution all DC insiders (who play the game - iow not Trump) get.


  56. by HatetheSwamp on June 15, 2023 12:18 pm

    Ah, yes, Indy!. Your healthy cynicism. Thanks!

    I do know that. I've called that sort of thing "political porn" during your absence. It's one of many reasons that I hate the Swamp.

    Thanks for posting. Your cold cynicism about American politics adds good things to this conversation.


  57. by Curt_Anderson on June 15, 2023 12:36 pm
    "They investigated Hillary FOREVER - so they either found nothing or (more likely) they found plenty and gave her the protection from prosecution all DC insiders (who play the game - iow not Trump) get." --Indy!

    Yass, yass, it was awful the way the GOP protected Hillary by pretending to investigate her and coming up with zero crimes. I bet Jim Jordan laughed it up with Hillary at our expense.

    I bet the House Republicans are feigning incompetence.


  58. by Indy! on June 15, 2023 1:33 pm
    It's charming (or perhaps scary) that even after all your years following politics you still believe the Ds are as pure as the driven snow, Curt. Especially when the Ds themselves have admitted to their own corruption so many times in the past.


  59. by Curt_Anderson on June 15, 2023 2:04 pm
    Indy!,
    I do not think that the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow. I do not think that there is a significant difference between the Democrat and the Republican politicians when it comes to levels of corruption. I do not think that politicians as a group or any more dishonest and corrupt than any other group of people in any other line of work. Of course, politicians play for higher stakes then say, a low wage worker. A clerk at Walmart might pilfer an item or two. A member of Congress might be tempted by something more lucrative.

    I also believe that Donald Trump is a special case when it comes to dishonesty and corruption. He is totally unencumbered by any sense of ethics or morality. You said it: Donald Trump has run two types of businesses: failures and scams. To be fair, besides failures and scams, Trump has had some accidental successes.


  60. by Curt_Anderson on June 15, 2023 2:04 pm
    Indy!,
    I do not think that the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow. I do not think that there is a significant difference between the Democrat and the Republican politicians when it comes to levels of corruption. I do not think that politicians as a group or any more dishonest and corrupt than any other group of people in any other line of work. Of course, politicians play for higher stakes then say, a low wage worker. A clerk at Walmart might pilfer an item or two. A member of Congress might be tempted by something more lucrative.

    I also believe that Donald Trump is a special case when it comes to dishonesty and corruption. He is totally unencumbered by any sense of ethics or morality. You said it: Donald Trump has run two types of businesses: failures and scams. To be fair, besides failures and scams, Trump has had some accidental successes.


  61. by Indy! on June 15, 2023 8:21 pm
    Curt: "I do not think that there is a significant difference between the Democrat and the Republican politicians when it comes to levels of corruption."

    You're a homer. Ds are actually more corrupt - they lie right to their constituents faces about who they represent. With the Rs you know what you're getting. The Ds you only know if you drop the pretense that they have any intention at all of doing something for anyone other than the oligarchy. You have to be like me - not cynical as PB says - but informed and willing to speak the truth without shading it.


    Curt: "I do not think that politicians as a group or any more dishonest and corrupt than any other group of people in any other line of work."

    Proving exactly what I said. Of course they are more corrupt. When the Walmart employee steals a couple trinkets they hurt no one. That cost is built into Walmart's sales because they know it's going to happen - it's part of doing business. When Joe Biden sends bombs to Ukraine because he's getting kickbacks from weapons manufacturers - he's murdering millions of innocent people in another country. Of course that is far more corrupt than someone stealing the latest Taylor Swift CD or a Red Bull out of the freezer because Walmart is paying them slave wages. Come down off your D soapbox and rejoin reality.


  62. by Curt_Anderson on June 15, 2023 9:02 pm
    Indy!,
    Your antipathy toward the Democrats is rooted in the Ted Kaczynski school of politics. Since you are closer ideologically to the Democrats you are more disappointed and frustrated that they have not come to embrace your worldview.

    I am not surprised that you oppose Biden sending weaponry to Ukraine which is at there request for defensive purposes. Siding against an imperialistic, bellicose autocracy is not corrupt. Your claim that Biden is getting kickbacks from weapons makers is your paranoid fantasy without a whit of proof.

    I don't view the Russian invaders as "millions of innocent people in another country". It is a false equivalency to say the Ukrainians and Russians are the same and equally guilty.

    Practically every job affords the worker some degree of trust. With the trust comes temptations and opportunities to violate that trust. Walmart pilferers are not more noble because the less of chance to make rip off their employer and thus drive up prices for the rest of us. The estimated cost of shoplifting generally to the consumer is an added two to three percent. That's like a 2% to 3% tax.


  63. by HatetheSwamp on June 16, 2023 2:59 am

    "I do not think that the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow. I do not think that there is a significant difference between the Democrat and the Republican politicians when it comes to levels of corruption." -Curt

    Either you're lying or you don't have a drip of self-awareness in you. Actually, that's why I posted the thread on how you account for Biden's lies. You proved that you are a Dem Good German...AGAIN.


  64. by Curt_Anderson on June 16, 2023 8:13 am
    HtS,
    What part of my statement do you think it’s a lie? If you were to go by recent public statements made by politicians, the Republicans are far and away the more frequent and blatant liars. They are denouncing the “witchhunt” and complaining that Biden is persecuting his political rival, even though most, if not all probably know better.


  65. by HatetheSwamp on June 16, 2023 12:16 pm

    Curt,

    It's your "I do not think that there is a significant difference between the Democrat and the Republican politicians when it comes to levels of corruption," that's your, as po'd say, BLATANT lie.


  66. by Curt_Anderson on June 16, 2023 12:35 pm
    HtS,
    I was being kind to Republicans to say there was not a significant difference between their corruption and the Democrats’. Since you want to make it an issue, what have the Democrats ever done that compares with the venality of Republicans Richard Nixon and Donald Trump? You can add to the comparison list all the Republican crooks that Donald Trump has pardoned such as Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Steve Bannon. These are Republicans who have been hauled into court for their corruption. The smears, insinuations, and innuendoes by Republicans is not evidence of corruption.


  67. by Indy! on June 16, 2023 9:05 pm
    Curt weighing degrees of corruption...

    "Hmmm... a possible 2-3% tax on consumers due to imaginary shoplifting... getting blown to bits so Joe Biden and the other war mongers can pocket billions of tax payer dollars... hmmmm... 2-3 cents sounds much more onerous..."

    What kind of "tax" does $800+ Billion dollars per year of military waste add onto Americans' income tax, Curt? 🤔


  68. by Indy! on June 16, 2023 9:11 pm
    It's also comical that you think the Russians are the "bellicose" country in this movie. We've done nothing but create one war after another throughout our country's entire history. Unnecessary, needless murdering of innocents for virtually every year of our existence. We just spent 20 years blowing up shit for nothing except MIC profit in Afghanistan for what? So we could arm the taliban in order for them to be better prepared for the next time we need a convenient "enemy" (which should be very soon since Ukraine is losing to Russia so grandly) to justify our overbloated, obscene, criminal military budget.


Go To Top

Comment on: "For those who want to know the facts."

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page