On 08-12-22 13:45, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
What do you know about the judge's connections, other than that he was appointed by Trump?
He was appointed while Trump was president, but not by President
Trump. Federal magistrate judges aren't appointed by the president.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-trump-appoint-judge- who-approved-fbi-ma
-lago-raid-1732495
With that system you get judges who know the law and apply it fairly.
If judges are subject to popular vote, they have to spend much time campaigning instead of judging -- plus they get voted on by people who have little understanding of the law.
It would not be the first time that a
President's relatives were a "skeleton in the closet".
It did also note that some documents were on the list that were not classified and/or may be covered by lawyer/client priveledge. If that is the case, they should know better. The search warrant only covered classified documents and not personal, unclassified ones.
It did also note that some documents were on the list that were notthat is
classified and/or may be covered by lawyer/client priveledge. If
the case, they should know better. The search warrant only covered
classified documents and not personal, unclassified ones.
Why do you guys keep on perpetuating the lies from the ultra-right Trumpsters?
Read my lips: There is nothing in the three laws upon which the search warrent was based, that limits them to classified documents!
Every single document, classified or not, illegally taken from NARA protected facilities is a violation of law, AKA illegal. Very much so, in one case it results in up to ten years of prison PER DOCUMENT!
I suggest you fact check things before you just parrot the fascists' attempts to make excuses for the dumbest former POTUS ever.
You're right. And you know what? President Joe Biden should grantIn exchange for not running in 2024. But, it might be even bad where Desantis may spank Biden AND Newsolini.
Donald J. Trump an unconditional and full presidential pardon, for
all crimes committed. And then walk away, allowing Donald J. Trump
You're right. And you know what? President Joe Biden should grant
Donald J. Trump an unconditional and full presidential pardon, for
all crimes committed. And then walk away, allowing Donald J. Trump
In exchange for not running in 2024.
But, it might be even bad where Desantis may spank Biden AND Newsolini.
And while you are at it, tell me about all the
charges against Hunter Biden. Oh, that's right. Can't find any having
been filed against him, either. No surprise there. But keep trying.
And while you are at it, tell me about all the
charges against Hunter Biden. Oh, that's right. Can't find any having
been filed against him, either. No surprise there. But keep trying.
LOL! This hoax is so stupid, I can't understand how any person capable of setting up a Fidonet access account are not able to see through it.
A. A filthy rich person like Hunter B. has a water damaged MacBook Pro.
B. He does not know, that trying to repair any Apple product usually costs more than buying a new one because he cant afford it?).
C. He decides to leave it, with lots of sensitive information on it(?),
to a non-Apple approved workshop, far away from his home, for "repair".
D. Despite several (allegedly) reminders from the workshop owner, he never tries to pick it up.
E. This workshop owner, identified as John Paul Mac Isaac, keeps the laptop for three years, and in the meantime he, as well as any other Russian friend from the MAGA cult, has total access to it.
F. "Holy Cow! Look what we found in it. Better alert the FBI." Ahem, well, let's alert Giuliani first, and let that totally unbiased person decide what to do with all this sensitive information.
How stupid can you be for believing all of the above?
The FBI sure as hell was not, they laughed it off.
But people as stupid as Trump and all of those below his stupidity, still to
this day keep harping this folly.
No wonder the Cult 45 went ballistic when Biden tried to restore the educational system in the USA. "We can't have affordable education here, the uneducated are our voter base!"
What was border security like in the 1880s when your family arrived in the US? Were the borders more, or less, open than they are now? How did that affect our national sovereignty? What was the driving force behind the change in border policy? Answer those questions correctly and I think you'll have a much more accurate understanding of "America First."
Illegal immigration is a problem and does neet to be dealt with, but the solution to that problem should not be taken out on legal refugees.
What was border security like in the 1880s when your family arrived in t US? Were the borders more, or less, open than they are now? How did that affect our national sovereignty? What was the driving force behind the c in border policy? Answer those questions correctly and I think you'll ha much more accurate understanding of "America First."Considering that most immigrants were coming across the Atlantic by boat... the boats would arrive and the immigrants would be processed through processing stations like Ellis Island, where the ship master
would present paperwork that was supposed to account for each
immigrating person aboard his ship. They were not all automatically accepted or "set loose" in NYC. Some where quaranteened for observation, others were turned away outright. Having a job already lined up, or relatives already in the country, was a plus.
If someone crosses the southern border now, at a legal crossing point, they go through at least some of the same treatment.
But not all of
them cross at legal crossings, and not all of those that don't get
caught.
Apparently many of the legal ones do not have sponsors or jobs
lined up.
Otherwise, the government would have turned them over to said
sponsors before the local governors got a chance to ask them if they
want to travel to NYC, Chicago, DC, or another proclaimed "sanctuary
city" and put them on a bus.
Illegal immigration is a problem and does neet to be dealt with, but the solution to that problem should not be taken out on legal refugees.Similarly, illegal immigrants should not be lumped in with legal refugees as "refugees." You make a distiction here. Others often do not.
But not all of
them cross at legal crossings, and not all of those that don't get caught.
True. But the refugees who cross seeking asylum generally turn themselves in at the first opportunity. Their situation makes them seek out the authorities rather than avoid them. They are doing things the legal way.
A big part of the anti-refugee propaganda is making them out to be illegal immigrants, which they are not.
Apparently many of the legal ones do not have sponsors or jobs
lined up.
There are organizations that will sponsor them.
Otherwise, the government would have turned them over to said
sponsors before the local governors got a chance to ask them if they want to travel to NYC, Chicago, DC, or another proclaimed "sanctuary city" and put them on a bus.
Organizations that will sponsor them are usually located in larger cities.
I like how you threw "sanctuary city" in there. "Sanctuary cities" are distinguished by their treatment of illegal immigrants, not refugees. You've been brainwashed into thinking that refugees are illegal immigrants, when they are not.
The Border Patrol also makes that distinction, and regularly deports illegal immigrants.
For me it is the ease of being able to yell "asylum!" and suddenly be considered legal or potentially legal. If they really wanted asylum,But not all ofTrue. But the refugees who cross seeking asylum generally turn themselve at the first opportunity. Their situation makes them seek out the author rather than avoid them. They are doing things the legal way.
them cross at legal crossings, and not all of those that don't get caught.
A big part of the anti-refugee propaganda is making them out to be illeg immigrants, which they are not.
they should have crossed at a legal checkpoint. If they are not, they
are hoping not to encounter someone, although I am certain they know to act as if they were looking for that encounter all along should it
happen.
Maybe you are that naive.
In past, you told us they had to have sponsors lined up already. WhichApparently many of the legal ones do not have sponsors or jobs lined up.There are organizations that will sponsor them.
is it?
But there are no illegal immigrants that don't get turned away, right?Otherwise, the government would have turned them over to said sponsors before the local governors got a chance to ask them if the want to travel to NYC, Chicago, DC, or another proclaimed "sanctuar city" and put them on a bus.Organizations that will sponsor them are usually located in larger citie I like how you threw "sanctuary city" in there. "Sanctuary cities" are distinguished by their treatment of illegal immigrants, not refugees. Yo been brainwashed into thinking that refugees are illegal immigrants, whe they are not.
The Border Patrol also makes that distinction, and regularly deports ill immigrants.
For me it is the ease of being able to yell "asylum!" and suddenly be considered legal or potentially legal. If they really wanted asylum, they should have crossed at a legal checkpoint. If they are not, they are hoping not to encounter someone, although I am certain they know to act as if they were looking for that encounter all along should it happen.But not all ofTrue. But the refugees who cross seeking asylum generally turn themselv
them cross at legal crossings, and not all of those that don't get
caught.
at the first opportunity. Their situation makes them seek out the autho
rather than avoid them. They are doing things the legal way.
A big part of the anti-refugee propaganda is making them out to be ille
immigrants, which they are not.
Refugees seeking asylum go through a vetting process. Not all are allowed through.
Maybe you are that naive.
Or maybe you are.
In past, you told us they had to have sponsors lined up already. Which is it?Apparently many of the legal ones do not have sponsors or jobs lined up.There are organizations that will sponsor them.
It is a combination of both.
If they don't cross at a legal checkpoint to make sure they encounter authorities to surrender to, they are not refugees. They only claim to
be as part of pretending to turn themselves in when getting caught.
That is not naive.
Not how you used to tell it when arguing with Aaron or Gregory. Thanks for clarifying that.In past, you told us they had to have sponsors lined up already. W is it?Apparently many of the legal ones do not have sponsors or jo lined up.There are organizations that will sponsor them.
point,If someone crosses the southern border now, at a legal crossing
point,If someone crosses the southern border now, at a legal crossing
My main problem with George Soros is that he's funding campaigns for district attorneys who refuse to prosecute. That bothers me. I also don't like how he's
invested in 18 hispanic radio stations in an attempt to subjugate some of the 1.8 million+ illegal immigrants who have entered the country since Joe took office.
What business is Soros in? Maybe he is in radio and wants more stations?
It seems odd that he would only target hispanic stations, though.
It has been reported that the one DA that got recalled in SF was a recepient of his money, and apparently said DA was even underperforming below typical left-leaning standards.
What business is Soros in? Maybe he is in radio and wants more stations?
What business is Soros in? Maybe he is in radio and wants more stationsThat's a good question. I can't say for sure, but I think it's the "ruling of the world" industry.
It seems odd that he would only target hispanic stations, though.Are you sure that "odd" is the word for it? I call it highly suspicious timi
It has been reported that the one DA that got recalled in SF was a recepient of his money, and apparently said DA was even underperforming below typical left-leaning standards.It's also highly suspicious why we've got an unprecedented number of DAs behaving like this.
What business is Soros in? Maybe he is in radio and wants more stationsRadio stations are propagation tools. (Add that to the suspicious list!)
Interesting that he "doesn't have that much power" to influence things, per readers here but, in 1993, The Atlantic (which is not known for
being a conservative publication) thought otherwise. If true, it
improves his stock some in my eyes since I think so little of communism, although it also proves that he can influence to the point of causing governments to fall.
James Kirchick, a Jewish American conservative reporter, has alleged that some progressives view all criticism of Soros as antisemitic and that
such claims are often made "entirely in bad faith," when, for example,
His funds, in past, have invested in political campaigns, causes, and objectives, but they have also invested in such benign things as a hotel chain in Argentina.
In 2004, Soros became involved in investing in US politics. He donated over $23 million to tax exempt groups that were aiming to defeat the re-election campaign of George W. Bush. After that unsuccessful
During 2020, Soros gave at least $500,000 to the Biden campaign, becoming one of their largest donors (New York Times, July, 2020).
They can indeed be used for propaganda. There used to be an old saying that, when one country invades another, one of the first things they look to take control over is the broadcast airwaves.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 240 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 64:33:54 |
| Calls: | 1,455 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 3,352 |
| Messages: | 357,823 |