Presidential cognitive issues

TeamGreen
Posts
37353
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
7/29/2025 8:14am
MPJC wrote:
Giving examples can’t prove they are wrong about everything. The most that could do is prove they are wrong about something - which is no revelation...

Giving examples can’t prove they are wrong about everything. The most that could do is prove they are wrong about something - which is no revelation; Who isn’t wrong about something?

T-MAC wrote:
Agreed. We are all human, we all do, and will always, make mistakes. The difference is owning them, being accountable, and trying to be a better...

Agreed. We are all human, we all do, and will always, make mistakes. The difference is owning them, being accountable, and trying to be a better version of yourself, whatever that is to you. If we all subscribe to this, the rest sorts itself out.

More human than human? 

TeamGreen
Posts
37353
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
7/29/2025 8:15am
Labeling incentives and quotas as “mandates” is a large part of the problem this country is having with discourse.   I don’t think any president has...

Labeling incentives and quotas as “mandates” is a large part of the problem this country is having with discourse.   I don’t think any president has mandated folks to buy anything.  Could be wrong though.  

TheGreat wrote:

MAGA has been riled up by a non-existent EV mandate for 4+ years now

Thanks. 

I love a good laugh. 

Damn…that’s rich. 🤣

SEEMEFIRST
Posts
14036
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
7/29/2025 8:17am
Labeling incentives and quotas as “mandates” is a large part of the problem this country is having with discourse.   I don’t think any president has...

Labeling incentives and quotas as “mandates” is a large part of the problem this country is having with discourse.   I don’t think any president has mandated folks to buy anything.  Could be wrong though.  

TheGreat wrote:

MAGA has been riled up by a non-existent EV mandate for 4+ years now

TeamGreen wrote:

Thanks. 

I love a good laugh. 

Damn…that’s rich. 🤣

How many subsidies have been given to this cause? Of our money....

3
TeamGreen
Posts
37353
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
7/29/2025 8:19am
TheGreat wrote:

MAGA has been riled up by a non-existent EV mandate for 4+ years now

TeamGreen wrote:

Thanks. 

I love a good laugh. 

Damn…that’s rich. 🤣

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

How many subsidies have been given to this cause? Of our money....

Oh, that?

That’s different! 

1

The Shop

Gworm
Posts
2813
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7/29/2025 8:31am Edited Date/Time 7/29/2025 8:44am
MPJC wrote:
The question of fact posed was easily addressed. The evaluative questions are a bit murkier - especially the whataboutism accusation. Biden did have classified documents as well...

The question of fact posed was easily addressed. The evaluative questions are a bit murkier - especially the whataboutism accusation. 

Biden did have classified documents as well, so bringing that up is more a matter of asking for consistency - treating like cases alike - than whataboutism. The argument is that if your guy gets a pass so should ours. Make of that what you like. But there’s at least a similarity on the face of it. 

There are, of course, significant differences in how each handled the situation. Trump was perplexingly defiant. I have no idea why, but it is certainly not desirable behaviour. But it wasn’t exactly flattering to Biden when the special counsel said it wasn’t worth pursuing because Biden would likely present  “... as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" with "diminished faculties in advancing age".  

So it seems to boil down to malicious defiance (with a bit of recklessness thrown in) vs senility. I don’t know how anyone wins that argument. 
 

 

Gworm wrote:
MPJC- you seem to be one of the wiser, more well spoken guys in here. In regards to the link posted, I hate to be “that...

MPJC- you seem to be one of the wiser, more well spoken guys in here. In regards to the link posted, I hate to be “that guy” , but I don’t trust anything that came from Biden’s DOJ with Merrick Garland in charge  

Thatonemxguy, or EID, whoever he is seems like the little stupid yappy dog hiding behind the big tough smart dog, But he definitely had me squirming! I am concerned how he saw me, though 

Absolutely had nothing to do with me having things going on. 

The one thing you didn’t address when comparing Biden’s and Trump’s document mismanagement was the fact that Biden took documents Illegally when he was a Senator. I’ve even heard some say he stole them from the skiff. 

. When Trump left with the documents, he was still President ( though not for long ) and still had the ability to declassify them. Some smarter than me ( which doesn’t take much, may have been Hannity) have even said that the mere fact that he left with them was in effect declassification ( I’m not sure about that, though). 
 

I wonder if any of those were the docs that Obama had classified to keep people from finding out his role in the Russian Collusion scam. 

I agree him flashing them around in front of people was dumb, but I’ve not heard that he actually let them read them. As I’ve said before, he’s kind of a buffoon. 

It is funny how pointing out the lack of consistency brings many to yell “whataboutism”. 

Worm 

MPJC wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court. 

I didn't address all the facts because one needs to choose what to focus on to not write too much. However and why the documents ended up in their possession, they had them and in both cases the DOJ didn't think they were entitled to the documents and wanted them back. Whether or not Trump was entitled to them - perhaps by declassifying them while President - would have been an argument to make in court. Why he wouldn't comply with law enforcement and give them back and then use proper legal channels to reacquire them if legally entitled to have them is beyond me. Putting aside the question of whether or not there was a sound legal case for his view on the matter (for the love of God, don't look to Hannity for legal analysis), Trump put the DOJ in a very awkward position. Giving the documents back and then litigating the case would make much more sense if you really are convinced your legal opinion should prevail. 

I have little to say about what Biden had or why. I'm not sure he knows. 

Sometimes whataboutism is a legitimate complaint and other times it's not, and sometimes the line is subtle or even rather blurred.

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court

Wasn’t this case dismissed ?

Edit:

Also, I don’t trust anything that came out of the. Iden DOJ, Even their Grand Jury. 

 I think there were a few other cases recently where they made up cases against Trump, weren’t there?

1
1
MPJC
Posts
2082
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
7/29/2025 8:44am
Gworm wrote:
MPJC- you seem to be one of the wiser, more well spoken guys in here. In regards to the link posted, I hate to be “that...

MPJC- you seem to be one of the wiser, more well spoken guys in here. In regards to the link posted, I hate to be “that guy” , but I don’t trust anything that came from Biden’s DOJ with Merrick Garland in charge  

Thatonemxguy, or EID, whoever he is seems like the little stupid yappy dog hiding behind the big tough smart dog, But he definitely had me squirming! I am concerned how he saw me, though 

Absolutely had nothing to do with me having things going on. 

The one thing you didn’t address when comparing Biden’s and Trump’s document mismanagement was the fact that Biden took documents Illegally when he was a Senator. I’ve even heard some say he stole them from the skiff. 

. When Trump left with the documents, he was still President ( though not for long ) and still had the ability to declassify them. Some smarter than me ( which doesn’t take much, may have been Hannity) have even said that the mere fact that he left with them was in effect declassification ( I’m not sure about that, though). 
 

I wonder if any of those were the docs that Obama had classified to keep people from finding out his role in the Russian Collusion scam. 

I agree him flashing them around in front of people was dumb, but I’ve not heard that he actually let them read them. As I’ve said before, he’s kind of a buffoon. 

It is funny how pointing out the lack of consistency brings many to yell “whataboutism”. 

Worm 

MPJC wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court. 

I didn't address all the facts because one needs to choose what to focus on to not write too much. However and why the documents ended up in their possession, they had them and in both cases the DOJ didn't think they were entitled to the documents and wanted them back. Whether or not Trump was entitled to them - perhaps by declassifying them while President - would have been an argument to make in court. Why he wouldn't comply with law enforcement and give them back and then use proper legal channels to reacquire them if legally entitled to have them is beyond me. Putting aside the question of whether or not there was a sound legal case for his view on the matter (for the love of God, don't look to Hannity for legal analysis), Trump put the DOJ in a very awkward position. Giving the documents back and then litigating the case would make much more sense if you really are convinced your legal opinion should prevail. 

I have little to say about what Biden had or why. I'm not sure he knows. 

Sometimes whataboutism is a legitimate complaint and other times it's not, and sometimes the line is subtle or even rather blurred.

Gworm wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court

Wasn’t this case dismissed ?

Edit:

Also, I don’t trust anything that came out of the. Iden DOJ, Even their Grand Jury. 

 I think there were a few other cases recently where they made up cases against Trump, weren’t there?

Indeed it was, though that had nothing to do with the substance of the case. Judge Cannon ruled that the special counsel was improperly appointed so the case was dismissed without prejudice, but was never refiled because Trump became President. So the evidence in the case was never litigated. 

2
RichieW13
Posts
2494
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
7/29/2025 9:03am
ToolMaker wrote:
Well, if people want to claim Trump has issues, what does that say about all their Trump hating media talking heads that he eats for lunch...

Well, if people want to claim Trump has issues, what does that say about all their Trump hating media talking heads that he eats for lunch. And that's after a healthy breakfast of the "dem experts" that are batting 1,000 being wrong about everything. Just how is it possible to be wrong about everything? I don't know, but CNN and the democrats seem to have figured it out.

RichieW13 wrote:

What does "wrong about everything" mean?  Can you provide some examples? 

MPJC wrote:
Giving examples can’t prove they are wrong about everything. The most that could do is prove they are wrong about something - which is no revelation...

Giving examples can’t prove they are wrong about everything. The most that could do is prove they are wrong about something - which is no revelation; Who isn’t wrong about something?

Of course.  But I just wanted to see some examples of what they are wrong about.

1
RichieW13
Posts
2494
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
7/29/2025 9:13am
Gworm wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court

Wasn’t this case dismissed ?

Edit:

Also, I don’t trust anything that came out of the. Iden DOJ, Even their Grand Jury. 

 I think there were a few other cases recently where they made up cases against Trump, weren’t there?

I have not heard about any cases made up against Trump.  Maybe I am just forgetting about them.  Do you know what they might have pertained to?

2
T-MAC
Posts
692
Joined
8/15/2011
Location
Trabuco Canyon, CA, USA
7/29/2025 9:14am Edited Date/Time 7/29/2025 9:15am
TeamGreen wrote:

More human than human? 

The most human. The biggest, most beautiful humans. Although in this context, biggest may not be betterer.

In my experience, the healthiest humans aren't the biggest in physical size or ego.

RichieW13
Posts
2494
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
7/29/2025 9:17am
Labeling incentives and quotas as “mandates” is a large part of the problem this country is having with discourse.   I don’t think any president has...

Labeling incentives and quotas as “mandates” is a large part of the problem this country is having with discourse.   I don’t think any president has mandated folks to buy anything.  Could be wrong though.  

TheGreat wrote:

MAGA has been riled up by a non-existent EV mandate for 4+ years now

California did have a mandate for 100% of all new car sales to be zero emissions by 2035.  Though the US Senate recently blocked that mandate, so we'll have to see how that goes.  Yes, that would have only applied to California, but California buys so many cars that manufacturers could base their national sales plan on what California law requires.

https://calmatters.org/environment/2025/05/california-electric-car-mand…

1
MPJC
Posts
2082
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
7/29/2025 9:20am
Gworm wrote:
MPJC- you seem to be one of the wiser, more well spoken guys in here. In regards to the link posted, I hate to be “that...

MPJC- you seem to be one of the wiser, more well spoken guys in here. In regards to the link posted, I hate to be “that guy” , but I don’t trust anything that came from Biden’s DOJ with Merrick Garland in charge  

Thatonemxguy, or EID, whoever he is seems like the little stupid yappy dog hiding behind the big tough smart dog, But he definitely had me squirming! I am concerned how he saw me, though 

Absolutely had nothing to do with me having things going on. 

The one thing you didn’t address when comparing Biden’s and Trump’s document mismanagement was the fact that Biden took documents Illegally when he was a Senator. I’ve even heard some say he stole them from the skiff. 

. When Trump left with the documents, he was still President ( though not for long ) and still had the ability to declassify them. Some smarter than me ( which doesn’t take much, may have been Hannity) have even said that the mere fact that he left with them was in effect declassification ( I’m not sure about that, though). 
 

I wonder if any of those were the docs that Obama had classified to keep people from finding out his role in the Russian Collusion scam. 

I agree him flashing them around in front of people was dumb, but I’ve not heard that he actually let them read them. As I’ve said before, he’s kind of a buffoon. 

It is funny how pointing out the lack of consistency brings many to yell “whataboutism”. 

Worm 

MPJC wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court. 

I didn't address all the facts because one needs to choose what to focus on to not write too much. However and why the documents ended up in their possession, they had them and in both cases the DOJ didn't think they were entitled to the documents and wanted them back. Whether or not Trump was entitled to them - perhaps by declassifying them while President - would have been an argument to make in court. Why he wouldn't comply with law enforcement and give them back and then use proper legal channels to reacquire them if legally entitled to have them is beyond me. Putting aside the question of whether or not there was a sound legal case for his view on the matter (for the love of God, don't look to Hannity for legal analysis), Trump put the DOJ in a very awkward position. Giving the documents back and then litigating the case would make much more sense if you really are convinced your legal opinion should prevail. 

I have little to say about what Biden had or why. I'm not sure he knows. 

Sometimes whataboutism is a legitimate complaint and other times it's not, and sometimes the line is subtle or even rather blurred.

Gworm wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court

Wasn’t this case dismissed ?

Edit:

Also, I don’t trust anything that came out of the. Iden DOJ, Even their Grand Jury. 

 I think there were a few other cases recently where they made up cases against Trump, weren’t there?

The case in NY - the fraud case - struck me as dubious. There was no victim since the loans were repaid without any issue, and it’s the sort of case where even if illegal, would normally never be prosecuted if not for a prosecutor who was elected to go after Trump. This wasn’t the federal DOJ though. One of the things this shows is the perils of electing prosecutors, thereby politicizing what should be the impartial pursuit of justice. 

The DOJ changes leadership at the top when there is a new President but for the most part, the same people are working there under the same rules. It’s not a radically different institution with a new set of rules with each new President and AG. 

So to be clear, are you saying that a politicized DOJ literally fabricated evidence, so it’s not just the legal reasoning but the facts that are in dispute? I have nothing to say in response to that because that’s immune to falsification. 

1
Gworm
Posts
2813
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7/29/2025 9:28am
MPJC wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court. 

I didn't address all the facts because one needs to choose what to focus on to not write too much. However and why the documents ended up in their possession, they had them and in both cases the DOJ didn't think they were entitled to the documents and wanted them back. Whether or not Trump was entitled to them - perhaps by declassifying them while President - would have been an argument to make in court. Why he wouldn't comply with law enforcement and give them back and then use proper legal channels to reacquire them if legally entitled to have them is beyond me. Putting aside the question of whether or not there was a sound legal case for his view on the matter (for the love of God, don't look to Hannity for legal analysis), Trump put the DOJ in a very awkward position. Giving the documents back and then litigating the case would make much more sense if you really are convinced your legal opinion should prevail. 

I have little to say about what Biden had or why. I'm not sure he knows. 

Sometimes whataboutism is a legitimate complaint and other times it's not, and sometimes the line is subtle or even rather blurred.

Gworm wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court

Wasn’t this case dismissed ?

Edit:

Also, I don’t trust anything that came out of the. Iden DOJ, Even their Grand Jury. 

 I think there were a few other cases recently where they made up cases against Trump, weren’t there?

MPJC wrote:
The case in NY - the fraud case - struck me as dubious. There was no victim since the loans were repaid without any issue, and...

The case in NY - the fraud case - struck me as dubious. There was no victim since the loans were repaid without any issue, and it’s the sort of case where even if illegal, would normally never be prosecuted if not for a prosecutor who was elected to go after Trump. This wasn’t the federal DOJ though. One of the things this shows is the perils of electing prosecutors, thereby politicizing what should be the impartial pursuit of justice. 

The DOJ changes leadership at the top when there is a new President but for the most part, the same people are working there under the same rules. It’s not a radically different institution with a new set of rules with each new President and AG. 

So to be clear, are you saying that a politicized DOJ literally fabricated evidence, so it’s not just the legal reasoning but the facts that are in dispute? I have nothing to say in response to that because that’s immune to falsification. 

When the DOJ changes leadership I think most of the same people are still working underneath are pretty swampy, and their rules are dictated by what they can get away with. 

2
Gworm
Posts
2813
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7/29/2025 9:29am
Gworm wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court

Wasn’t this case dismissed ?

Edit:

Also, I don’t trust anything that came out of the. Iden DOJ, Even their Grand Jury. 

 I think there were a few other cases recently where they made up cases against Trump, weren’t there?

RichieW13 wrote:
I have not heard about any cases made up against Trump.  Maybe I am just forgetting about them.  Do you know what they might have pertained...

I have not heard about any cases made up against Trump.  Maybe I am just forgetting about them.  Do you know what they might have pertained to?

You play dumb really well. 

1
3
RichieW13
Posts
2494
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
7/29/2025 9:31am
MPJC wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court. 

I didn't address all the facts because one needs to choose what to focus on to not write too much. However and why the documents ended up in their possession, they had them and in both cases the DOJ didn't think they were entitled to the documents and wanted them back. Whether or not Trump was entitled to them - perhaps by declassifying them while President - would have been an argument to make in court. Why he wouldn't comply with law enforcement and give them back and then use proper legal channels to reacquire them if legally entitled to have them is beyond me. Putting aside the question of whether or not there was a sound legal case for his view on the matter (for the love of God, don't look to Hannity for legal analysis), Trump put the DOJ in a very awkward position. Giving the documents back and then litigating the case would make much more sense if you really are convinced your legal opinion should prevail. 

I have little to say about what Biden had or why. I'm not sure he knows. 

Sometimes whataboutism is a legitimate complaint and other times it's not, and sometimes the line is subtle or even rather blurred.

Gworm wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court

Wasn’t this case dismissed ?

Edit:

Also, I don’t trust anything that came out of the. Iden DOJ, Even their Grand Jury. 

 I think there were a few other cases recently where they made up cases against Trump, weren’t there?

MPJC wrote:
The case in NY - the fraud case - struck me as dubious. There was no victim since the loans were repaid without any issue, and...

The case in NY - the fraud case - struck me as dubious. There was no victim since the loans were repaid without any issue, and it’s the sort of case where even if illegal, would normally never be prosecuted if not for a prosecutor who was elected to go after Trump. This wasn’t the federal DOJ though. One of the things this shows is the perils of electing prosecutors, thereby politicizing what should be the impartial pursuit of justice. 

The DOJ changes leadership at the top when there is a new President but for the most part, the same people are working there under the same rules. It’s not a radically different institution with a new set of rules with each new President and AG. 

So to be clear, are you saying that a politicized DOJ literally fabricated evidence, so it’s not just the legal reasoning but the facts that are in dispute? I have nothing to say in response to that because that’s immune to falsification. 

The fraud case is kind of like a DUI.  The driver got caught before he crashed his car and caused damage or injury.   

If we don't prosecute people for fraud, if the loan gets paid back; then more and more people will commit fraud to get loans.  And many of those probably won't get paid back, which means investors are defrauded, and future loans will end up having higher interest rates.  

 

I agree that most people probably wouldn't be charged in a case like this.  But they should.  It's one of the problems with our legal system where rich people can create massive fraud and nothing happens.  But if some guy gets caught stealing a pack of cigarettes, he goes to jail.

1
2
RichieW13
Posts
2494
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
7/29/2025 9:32am
Gworm wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court

Wasn’t this case dismissed ?

Edit:

Also, I don’t trust anything that came out of the. Iden DOJ, Even their Grand Jury. 

 I think there were a few other cases recently where they made up cases against Trump, weren’t there?

RichieW13 wrote:
I have not heard about any cases made up against Trump.  Maybe I am just forgetting about them.  Do you know what they might have pertained...

I have not heard about any cases made up against Trump.  Maybe I am just forgetting about them.  Do you know what they might have pertained to?

Gworm wrote:

You play dumb really well. 

OK, then give me an example of the DOJ making up a case against Trump.

2
7/29/2025 9:35am

I'd be great at golf too...

😁

My sister in law lives on a fairway of a golf course with a sand bunker in front of her back porch. That move is the norm not the exception. 🤨

 

ThatOneMXGuy
Posts
1073
Joined
12/28/2023
Location
Somewhere, MO, USA
7/29/2025 9:37am
MPJC wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court. 

I didn't address all the facts because one needs to choose what to focus on to not write too much. However and why the documents ended up in their possession, they had them and in both cases the DOJ didn't think they were entitled to the documents and wanted them back. Whether or not Trump was entitled to them - perhaps by declassifying them while President - would have been an argument to make in court. Why he wouldn't comply with law enforcement and give them back and then use proper legal channels to reacquire them if legally entitled to have them is beyond me. Putting aside the question of whether or not there was a sound legal case for his view on the matter (for the love of God, don't look to Hannity for legal analysis), Trump put the DOJ in a very awkward position. Giving the documents back and then litigating the case would make much more sense if you really are convinced your legal opinion should prevail. 

I have little to say about what Biden had or why. I'm not sure he knows. 

Sometimes whataboutism is a legitimate complaint and other times it's not, and sometimes the line is subtle or even rather blurred.

Gworm wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court

Wasn’t this case dismissed ?

Edit:

Also, I don’t trust anything that came out of the. Iden DOJ, Even their Grand Jury. 

 I think there were a few other cases recently where they made up cases against Trump, weren’t there?

MPJC wrote:
The case in NY - the fraud case - struck me as dubious. There was no victim since the loans were repaid without any issue, and...

The case in NY - the fraud case - struck me as dubious. There was no victim since the loans were repaid without any issue, and it’s the sort of case where even if illegal, would normally never be prosecuted if not for a prosecutor who was elected to go after Trump. This wasn’t the federal DOJ though. One of the things this shows is the perils of electing prosecutors, thereby politicizing what should be the impartial pursuit of justice. 

The DOJ changes leadership at the top when there is a new President but for the most part, the same people are working there under the same rules. It’s not a radically different institution with a new set of rules with each new President and AG. 

So to be clear, are you saying that a politicized DOJ literally fabricated evidence, so it’s not just the legal reasoning but the facts that are in dispute? I have nothing to say in response to that because that’s immune to falsification. 

See what I mean? Wasting your time. You show facts, he doesn’t trust them (that was always going to be the response no matter what). Then instead of addressing the facts, they want you to argue over what the facts even are. They put out their “facts” from a far right wing station that’s completely false. You put out yours that’s actually true and they say well can’t trust em! Once they get you arguing over what the facts even are, you’ve lost. You ask him to defend his guy, he can’t. They just want to get you off in the weeds instead of actually acknowledging the guy they’ve made their cult leader is a convicted felon, held civilly liable of rape, who is a massive piece of shit and has cheated on every wife he’s had. @Gworm is big time deep in the cult. His orange cult leader can do no wrong. I’d guess he has flown the flag outside of his house for ten years, has a red hat on his head almost all the time, and a bumper sticker on his vehicle.

1
4
MPJC
Posts
2082
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
7/29/2025 9:37am
Gworm wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury...

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say not to trust the DOJ. Are you saying they're framing Trump? That's pretty unlikely. A grand jury saw the evidence and deemed it indictable. If there was no basis for their case, then it should have been an easy win in court

Wasn’t this case dismissed ?

Edit:

Also, I don’t trust anything that came out of the. Iden DOJ, Even their Grand Jury. 

 I think there were a few other cases recently where they made up cases against Trump, weren’t there?

MPJC wrote:
The case in NY - the fraud case - struck me as dubious. There was no victim since the loans were repaid without any issue, and...

The case in NY - the fraud case - struck me as dubious. There was no victim since the loans were repaid without any issue, and it’s the sort of case where even if illegal, would normally never be prosecuted if not for a prosecutor who was elected to go after Trump. This wasn’t the federal DOJ though. One of the things this shows is the perils of electing prosecutors, thereby politicizing what should be the impartial pursuit of justice. 

The DOJ changes leadership at the top when there is a new President but for the most part, the same people are working there under the same rules. It’s not a radically different institution with a new set of rules with each new President and AG. 

So to be clear, are you saying that a politicized DOJ literally fabricated evidence, so it’s not just the legal reasoning but the facts that are in dispute? I have nothing to say in response to that because that’s immune to falsification. 

RichieW13 wrote:
The fraud case is kind of like a DUI.  The driver got caught before he crashed his car and caused damage or injury.   If we don't...

The fraud case is kind of like a DUI.  The driver got caught before he crashed his car and caused damage or injury.   

If we don't prosecute people for fraud, if the loan gets paid back; then more and more people will commit fraud to get loans.  And many of those probably won't get paid back, which means investors are defrauded, and future loans will end up having higher interest rates.  

 

I agree that most people probably wouldn't be charged in a case like this.  But they should.  It's one of the problems with our legal system where rich people can create massive fraud and nothing happens.  But if some guy gets caught stealing a pack of cigarettes, he goes to jail.

It's the apparent political motivation for the prosecution that's objectionable - again, going back to the principle that like cases ought to be treated alike. 

I'm really not making any friends here by arguing with both sides, am I? 

EVH4Ever
Posts
1857
Joined
3/6/2025
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
7/29/2025 9:38am
Gworm wrote:

You play dumb really well. 

I don’t think he’s playing.

1
3
ThatOneMXGuy
Posts
1073
Joined
12/28/2023
Location
Somewhere, MO, USA
7/29/2025 9:39am
Gworm wrote:

You play dumb really well. 

EVH4Ever wrote:

I don’t think he’s playing.

Well we know the two of you aren’t. 

1
5
RichieW13
Posts
2494
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
7/29/2025 9:43am
Gworm wrote:

You play dumb really well. 

EVH4Ever wrote:

I don’t think he’s playing.

If you think I'm dumb because I can't remember the DOJ making up charges against Trump, then it should be easy for you to provide an example when they did.

Gworm
Posts
2813
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7/29/2025 9:46am

Not technically the DOJ, but Tish James, Alvin Bragg, and Big Fany down in Fulton county were in cahoots with and meeting with the Biden administration. 

 

2
2
Gworm
Posts
2813
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7/29/2025 9:47am
Gworm wrote:

You play dumb really well. 

EVH4Ever wrote:

I don’t think he’s playing.

Well we know the two of you aren’t. 

Dave woke up!

1
2
EVH4Ever
Posts
1857
Joined
3/6/2025
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
7/29/2025 9:53am
Gworm wrote:

Dave woke up!

He had flashbacks of screwing over his former partner while playing dumb. 😂

1
1
ThatOneMXGuy
Posts
1073
Joined
12/28/2023
Location
Somewhere, MO, USA
7/29/2025 10:02am
EVH4Ever wrote:

I don’t think he’s playing.

Well we know the two of you aren’t. 

Gworm wrote:

Dave woke up!

I have no clue who the fuck Dave is.

Would you be proud if your daughter or sister brought home someone exactly like your cult leader?

2
ThatOneMXGuy
Posts
1073
Joined
12/28/2023
Location
Somewhere, MO, USA
7/29/2025 10:03am
Gworm wrote:

You play dumb really well. 

EVH4Ever wrote:

I don’t think he’s playing.

RichieW13 wrote:
If you think I'm dumb because I can't remember the DOJ making up charges against Trump, then it should be easy for you to provide an...

If you think I'm dumb because I can't remember the DOJ making up charges against Trump, then it should be easy for you to provide an example when they did.

Wasting your time. They are in too deep to reason with.

3
Gworm
Posts
2813
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7/29/2025 10:11am Edited Date/Time 7/29/2025 10:15am

Well we know the two of you aren’t. 

Gworm wrote:

Dave woke up!

I have no clue who the fuck Dave is.

Would you be proud if your daughter or sister brought home someone exactly like your cult leader?

I’ve said several times that I think he is a buffoon. Very far from a cult leader. 

But I do think he’s been waaaay better of a president than I initially thought he would. 

If you think Biden, or whoever was running the joint, was good president, or that Kamalhead would have been better, well, good for you. 

2
4
LungButter
Posts
8684
Joined
1/9/2016
Location
Yellow Pine, ID, USA
7/29/2025 10:28am
Gworm wrote:

You play dumb really well. 

EVH4Ever wrote:

I don’t think he’s playing.

RichieW13 wrote:
If you think I'm dumb because I can't remember the DOJ making up charges against Trump, then it should be easy for you to provide an...

If you think I'm dumb because I can't remember the DOJ making up charges against Trump, then it should be easy for you to provide an example when they did.

Wait a minute.... you want @EVH4Ever to back up something he said with facts?

That's a good one bro, let me give you some advice, don't hold your breath for that to happen.

3
ThatOneMXGuy
Posts
1073
Joined
12/28/2023
Location
Somewhere, MO, USA
7/29/2025 10:33am
Gworm wrote:

Dave woke up!

I have no clue who the fuck Dave is.

Would you be proud if your daughter or sister brought home someone exactly like your cult leader?

Gworm wrote:
I’ve said several times that I think he is a buffoon. Very far from a cult leader. But I do think he’s been waaaay better of a...

I’ve said several times that I think he is a buffoon. Very far from a cult leader. 

But I do think he’s been waaaay better of a president than I initially thought he would. 

If you think Biden, or whoever was running the joint, was good president, or that Kamalhead would have been better, well, good for you. 

Again, you’re too stupid to reason with at all. You can’t even admit your cult leader lost in 2020. You’re pathetic. 

6
7/29/2025 10:35am
Gworm wrote:
I’ve said several times that I think he is a buffoon. Very far from a cult leader. But I do think he’s been waaaay better of a...

I’ve said several times that I think he is a buffoon. Very far from a cult leader. 

But I do think he’s been waaaay better of a president than I initially thought he would. 

If you think Biden, or whoever was running the joint, was good president, or that Kamalhead would have been better, well, good for you. 

Dude. Charles Mansons followers would have been embarrassed by the level of unwavering blind worship you guys have for Trump.

2
4

Post a reply to: Presidential cognitive issues

The Latest