Oath Keepers Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy

1. 90

   peoplepower73posted 16 months ago

   Finally Justice is being served
   Rhodes and the other defendants were charged with disrupting the peaceful transfer of power by conspiring to oppose by force the certification of President Joe Biden's electoral college victory on Jan. 6, 2021, among multiple other felonies.
   
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oath- … e282124c3d

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Not surprising, the federal law on Seditious Conspiracy is pretty wide:
      
      "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
      
      The yahoos that took over the building in Oregon were guilty.  Anyone forcibly opposing any federal law enforcement is guilty.  Attempting to take over any federal building, as was done in the Portland riots, qualifies.  Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of it.
      
      None of which matters at all, of course, as Trump was not convicted.  Or indicted in spite of all the cries that he masterminded and controlled that riot.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

         Wilderness:  You just don't give up do you?  I believe Trump's turn is coming.
         
         Two Trump-appointed judges reject comparisons between January 6 and Portland unrest
         
         https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/28/politics … index.html

         replyreport
         1. 97

            DrMark1961posted 16 months agoin reply to this

            Actually from what I am seeing here is you are the one that will not give up. TDS.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

               DrMark:  Do you think Trump should get away clean for trying to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power from a duly elected president and admitting he stole highly classified documents from the DOD?

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Stop proving them to be right peoplepower. The thread is about the Oath Keepers' verdicts, and the Portland riots tangent, not about Trump and classified documents.  Poke, poke. ;-)
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                     GA:  In my view, Trump is the common denominator in all of this.  If it wasn't for Trump, none of this would have happened. There would have been no Jan. 6  riots, no stealing of classified documents and no election deniers who still won't accept losing an election. He is a narcissistic master con-artist who plays to peoples fantasies.

                     replyreport
         2. 94

            wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            LOL  One of us doesn't give up, that's for sure! 

            replyreport
   2. 80

      Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      I am not sure if you watched the trial. There was ample physical evidence to convict this man as charged. It certainly does indicate justice was done. Evidence was the key to his conviction, as well as his own words.
      
      Hopefully, this tells you it is just smarter to wait and let justice take its course. You have had Trump one foot behind bars for many years now. Perhaps you might consider it smarter to just not assume one is guilty of a crime, at best until charged with a crime.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

         Sharlee:  You and Wilderness tried to minimize the action of the Oath Keepers when I commented about their involvement in Jan. 6.  And now you are lecturing me about Trump.
         
         I believe the Proud Boys are next to be prosecuted and Trump will follow with the Special Counsel hot on his trail.  Trump has already admitted to stealing the classified documents.
         
         https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … li=BBnb7Kz

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

            "Sharlee:  You and Wilderness tried to minimize the action of the Oath Keepers when I commented about their involvement in Jan. 6.  And now you are lecturing me about Trump."
            
            No, actually we did not. We stuck to known facts and nothing else. I did ask you a bit ago to quote me in regard to your feelings I belittled your thoughts. You did not respond. I must ask you once again to quote me in regard to this current view you shared here. I don't feel I minimized your view, just shared my view. I think you read too much into others' opinions and feel if one does not agree with you, you may feel one is minimizing your view.
            
            I have offered my view of the problems Trump faces due to taking Documents from the White House. I have claimed over and over, I think he most probably will be indicted for taking the documents. I o not think the prosecution will win.
            
            I also shared I don't think he will face any charges in regard to the Jan 6th riot.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

               I agree with both opinions.  Trump will be indicted, but will face no repercussions.  He will be indicted because Democrats are still slavering to put him behind bars (eliminating him as a presidential candidate) and he will be declared innocent because of past history.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  So agree. I was just reading that a judge has ordered Trump to hand over his Taxes to Congress.  The same taxes that NY DA has had for over a year, and found nothing to indicate Trump has any indictable problems with his taxes. Now Congress will once again open an investigation on his taxes.
                  
                  In my view, we once again have a  'let's accuse, and look for evidence to get Trump". I feel the Democrats will continue to go after Trump until he either dies or steps away from politics. I must say I have never witnessed such a man that would fight so hard to unveil the swamp.
                  
                  Just wish more Americans would look at all of these slimy tricks for what they are, slimy tricks to say look here, not there.
                  
                  And some owner why we have such a dived. I mean what is being done to Trump is so obvious, it shocks me that anyone I mean at this point anyone can't see through the ploys that the Democrats have been perpetuating.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                     I'm not so sure that the primary goal is to find something to hang Trump with in his taxes.  I rather think the goal is to make them all public, exposing his every deal to open scrutiny and demonization.  Consider public reaction if he doesn't pay thousands of times what the man in the street does in taxes.  Consider the reaction when the sheer amount of money passing through Trump's hands is made public, and tied to very little in the way of taxes (only 100X what others pay.). 
                     
                     I think the goal is to demonize Trump even more than he already is, and to make business dealings public, destroying a major portion of the future possibilities for business.

                     replyreport
                     1. 68

                        abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                        All because he dared!

                        replyreport
            2. 90

               peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

               Sharlee;  This is what Wilderness said about the guy with the spear and horns.  "Looks like a real killer, right?  Ready to murder the VP and take over the country on the spot, right?"  It turns out he was one of the first one to enter the chamber with a bull horn, lead the mob in  and scratch a note on Pelosi's desk about her final days. He is indicted and going to spend time in jail.
               
               When you disagree with someone, you state that you disagree with what they said. When you criticize what someone is saying then you are downplaying and minimizing what they are saying.  You call it your facts.
               
               This what you said eight days ago about my comments.
               
               They certainly could have sought out Pelosi and Pence if they were determined to find them. They were in, they has guns and other weapons. The fact is they did not. Did this riot even resemble any type of a plan to kill anyone?
               
               It is very factual that they constructed three pieces of wood that appeared to be gallows. Did they attempt to hang anyone? NO
               
               No, I do not know what they were going to do. I know they did not use those guns, hold hostages, or even look pursue finding anyone to hang. You need to look factually at what they did, not what you feel they were capable of.
               
               "Do you think they carried weapons just to play soldier."
               
               Did they use their guns? No
               
               " They had a complete stash of ammunition in standby off site."
               
               So, what good would those weapons do sitting in a hotel room? You are adding your own views to what could have been done, not what actually occurred. Logically, in my view,
               this bunch did not have any true plan nor were they intending to do harm to any human being, because they certainly could have. The protest got out of hand, and a riot occurred my view. It's actually a miracle one of these yahoos did not flip out and start shooting. But they just did not.
               
               My point is I was right about the Oath Keepers and stashing their weapons and the guy with the horns and spear.  You and Wilderness say, I'm letting my imagination run away with things when in fact I was right.
               
               I do deal in facts.  I did the research and posted it on why the Portland DA was lenient in his prosecution  of many of the rioters.  But republicans are not buying it because they want to compare it to the Jan. 6. riots.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  All that you have quoted in regard to my views --- I think you are misreading the context. Do you note the punctuation? I asked you direct questions, note the ? marks, I followed up with my personal views, on the questions I asked of you.  I don't consider disagreeing or questioning another view as minimizing another view, just sharing my perspective, on a given subject.
                  
                  I did follow up with a concern about ruminating on Trump. I thought it helpful, not meant to insult. In my view, concentrating or ruminating on a given problem can cause health problems. I can see I became too personal, and apologize for my unsolicited advice.  I felt we have become chat mates and could share advice --- my bad.

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                     Sharlee:  My point is what you and wilderness consider as facts are sometimes just your opinions and then you tell me I should only deal in facts and not let my imagination run away with things.
                     
                     As far as health problems go, if I can't express myself after doing research, then I can have health problems.  I am addicted to these forums and I find commenting very challenging at times, but I love the challenge, it is very satisfying.
                     
                     When I said the rioters had paramilitary troops, wilderness minimized my comments by saying they only had a fire extinguisher and a flag pole. I know I should be commenting on Wilderness' thread, but I'm hoping he will read this comment.
                     
                     I accept your "my bad" as an apology.

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                        "wilderness minimized my comments by saying they only had a fire extinguisher and a flag pole"
                        
                        ??What weapons do you think they had at the Capitol?  Not miles away, uselessly sitting in a motel room in another state, but at the scene of the insurrection, where the nation was being taken over?

                        replyreport
                     2. 80

                        Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                        "Sharlee:  My point is what you and wilderness consider as facts are sometimes just your opinions and then you tell me I should only deal in facts and not let my imagination run away with things."
                        
                        If I am intending to present a fact, I offer a link, otherwise, I think most would agree here I overuse the words IMO, and in my view. Just saying. This is a chat, I note much is view-related, more so than many social media sites. I realize you also share your views, your context is as a rule clear.
                        
                        I think it is wonderful to challenge in a conversation, it is what keeps a conversation alive, and interesting.
                        
                        "When I said the rioters had paramilitary troops, wilderness minimized my comments by saying they only had a fire extinguisher and a flag pole. I know I should be commenting on Wilderness' thread, but I'm hoping he will read this comment."
                        
                        I read that as his view just differs in regards to yours. He has compared weapons and sees some used as more harmful. Just his view of one weapon being less problematic than another. I think on chats context can get hard to decipher.
                        
                        I also think we get to know each other the longer we chat at one site. I try to work around personalities, some I just don't become involved with, for many reasons. 
                        
                        I can see you like a good debate, and hold your own, but at times (as we all do) just read the context wrong.

                        replyreport
   3. 67

      KC McGeeposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      How odd that Antifa/BLM can commit sedition by setting up a CHAZ in the middle of Seattle in 2020 and the Democrats still say it was only a  "Protest". And those responsable have never been charge with sediton.
      
      No, justice has NOT BEEN SERVED.

      replyreport
2. 88

   GA Andersonposted 16 months ago

   I  see the Jan. 6 and Portland comparison as a point about the unequal application of law, not the validity of the verdicts. I too think the Portland rioters were under-charged and that law enforcement efforts were less than what the law demanded.
   
   But, that doesn't change the facts that brought the Capitol rioters', (seditionists?), convictions. From what I have seen so far, I agree with the verdicts. I didn't get the orgasmic thrill that CNN did, but I was relieved to see what I view as proper application of the law—even when it has to stand next to the example of improper application concerning the Portland rioters.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      I agree with you, GA - the Capitol rioters convictions were in line with their crime.  It does remain to be seen if their sentences are as well; it should be in line with the sentences laid down in other riots, not multiplied by 10 as a way to get at Trump or because it was the powerful of the nation that were scared.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

         Wilderness:  Do you think Trump should get away clean when he now admits he stole the documents and that he tried to obstruct the peaceful transfer of ;power to a duly elected president?
         
         It's also interesting in your previous comments that you tried to minimize what the Oath Keepers were about. So much for the guy with the horns and the spear and fire extinguisher. Next are the Proud Boys.  I'm sure you will compare their trial to the Portland riot.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            "Wilderness:  Do you think Trump should get away clean when he now admits he stole the documents and that he tried to obstruct the peaceful transfer of ;power to a duly elected president?"
            
            Does either one of those have anything to do with the Capitol riot?  No?  Then you are off on a tangent again, trying to convict Trump instead of sticking to the topic.
            
            Yes, I will compare their trial to Portland riot.  As GA pointed out it is quite apparent that the criminals from Portland riots will in no way be treated as those from the Capitol riot.  There appear to be two reasons for this:
            1) there is a possibility, however slim, of including Trump in the Capitol riot.
            2) the Capitol riot frightened those with the power to do something about it - something the victims in Portland could not do.  Plus, of course, we must keep in mind that liberals do not believe in enforcing laws...unless they are directly affected.

            replyreport
   2. 90

      peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      GA:  This is from the Portland Court House Newsroom.
      
      PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) — Most of the approximately 550 people arrested in Portland, Oregon, since May 29 in protests against police brutality and systemic racism won’t be prosecuted, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt announced Tuesday.
      
      Just 11 days into his new term as elected district attorney, Schmidt announced Tuesday that his office will decline to prosecute cases related to the protests that do not involve violence, theft, or deliberate property damage. His office will not pursue charges of disorderly conduct, interfering with a police officer, criminal trespass and most charges of rioting. There will be no change in how prosecutors handle cases like arson and assault.
      
      Schmidt said Tuesday that the policy was an attempt to “create a forum” for Portlanders to express their “collective grief, anger and frustration” about the death of George Floyd, a Black man killed by a white Minneapolis police officer who kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes, and about “the countless other abuses people of color have endured in our country throughout history.
      
      “As prosecutors, we acknowledge the depth of emotion that motivates these demonstrations and support those who are civically engaged through peaceful protesting,” Schmidt said at a Tuesday press conference. “We recognize that we will undermine public safety, not promote it, if we leverage the force of our criminal justice system against peaceful protestors who are demanding to be heard.”
      
      Charges of resisting arrest will be treated with “a high level of scrutiny,” to consider the chaos of mass demonstrations and whether police have subjected protesters to clouds of tear gas in the moments before arrests, Schmidt said.
      
      He added that his office has a team of 10 deputy district attorneys reviewing all protest-related charges.
      
      Out of about 550 people arrested for their part in Portland’s 75 straight days of protests against police brutality and systemic racism, about 50 were charged with felonies that have already been prosecuted, according to Nathan Vasquez, senior deputy district attorney. Another 100 were charged with felonies in cases where Schmidt’s office has asked police to complete additional investigation before deciding whether to pursue the charges. For the remaining 400 people facing misdemeanors, Schmidt’s office will likely drop all charges.
      
      Here is the link to the article.
      
      https://www.courthousenews.com/portland … rotesters/

      replyreport
      1. 88

         GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks for the link. Which part of the 'Portland riots' argument is it intended to support?
         
         The link seems to say 50 people, (plus some portion of another 100, maybe?), out of 550 charged, have faced prosecution. I don't think that was your intended point.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 90

            peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

            GA:  My point is it was up to the Portland DA to make the decision to let some of those people off the hook because their protest was about the  treatment given to George Floyd. If you want to blame somebody, blame him. 
            
            Jan. 6 and Portland were both riots, but with different intentions and motivation.  Jan. 6 was about storming and enter the seat of the U.S. government for the purpose of obstructing the peaceful transfer of power to the duly elected president.
            
            Portland was a protest about the excessive use of force used on George Floyd that caused his death.  You stated it was unequal application of the law.  I agree with you, but it was done with purpose because the intentions and motivation were different. Granted, they were both riots.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               KC McGeeposted 16 months agoin reply to this

               biden was NOT DULY ELECTED. It was STOLEN by the DEMOCRATS.

               replyreport
            2. 88

               GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

               But, but . . . I wasn't using the Portland riots as some sort of mitigation.
               
               Your closing said a lot; they were both riots but one was done with purpose because the intentions and motivation were different. What does that mean, Jan. 6 had bad motives and Portland had good ones?
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  GA: I didn't say one was done with purpose.  I said it was done with purpose.  I am not defending either one.  They are both bad. If you don't like the outcome, take it up with Portland DA, not me. I'm just trying to understand the rational behind both sides.

                  replyreport
            3. 94

               wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

               I will grant you that the Portland (and Seattle, and Minneapolis, and dozens of others) riots started by BLM were a protest against the death of Floyd.  But as soon as the sun went down, night after night after night, any such though went out the window and it became a simple riot.  Looting, burning, destruction, flagrant violence against authority, etc. 
               
               If you're going to use motive to determine whether a punishment should be given, consider that against the idiots in the Capital that merely wanted to stop an illegal election. 
               
               But if it's not about motive, and the Capital riot was about stopping the proper transfer of power to a duly elected president rather than stopping an illegal election process, then it should not matter why the other riots happened, either.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness:  I read in one of the articles it had to do with evidence. Since they were mainly protesting after the sun went down, it was dark and they had to prove evidence on specific individuals which is hard to do when you can't see them.. If you don't like the outcome, I suggest you do the research and find out what the DA's  rational was for making those decisions.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                     Here I will take a leaf from your playbook: I think I already know the rationale.  It was the liberal philosophy that it is OK to ignore the law if it is a "bad" law.  We see Democrat leaders leading "protests" on private ground, we see Democrats denying Washington's right to protect our borders, we see them encouraging riots by allowing them to continue an denying federal help to control them.
                     
                     The Portland, and other, riots were simply more of the same IMO; liberals allowing people to harm others in the name of being WOKE.

                     replyreport
         2. 94

            wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            I also have to question why 550 people, after 100+ days of rioting (50/day) are charged out of the thousands rioting, while a majority of those at the Capital have been charged with a crime.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

               Wilderness:  If you don't like the outcome, take it up with the Portland DA, not me.  I'm just trying to understand why people are making the comparison.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  "I'm just trying to understand why people are making the comparison."
                  
                  That one's real easy.  A riot is a riot is a riot.  Property destruction is property destruction.  People getting hurt is people getting hurt.  At the root there is no difference between Portland riots and the Capital riot - you can try to make one, in your mind, but there isn't really.  Regardless of what motivation you may apply, regardless of how you try and make one evil and one normal, at the root it is people violating the law and causing harm to others.

                  replyreport
      2. 94

         wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

         *shudder* Can there be a better reason to stay far, far away from Portland (and perhaps the entire state) than public announcements like that one? 
         
         "Don't worry about cops, people; we won't prosecute for anything less than murder and arson and will look the other way in order not to arrest for that, either.

         replyreport
3. 68

   abwilliamsposted 16 months ago

   Truth. PP has a severe case of TDS. If the TDS sufferers have their way, the Jan. 6th protest, wherein ONE person, a Trump supporter, died, will go down as the worst event in history!

   replyreport
   1. 90

      peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      ab:  You also have a severe case of TDS (Trump Denial Syndrome).

      replyreport
      1. 68

         abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

         Yep there is no denying that Trump lives in your head rent free.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

            ab:  There is nobody living in your head, because there is nobody home and all the lights are off.  Actually you are suffering from cognitive dissonance...look it up.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

               Attempting to diagnose me doesn't fix you.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  ab:  How do you feel about Trump admitting that he stole the highly classified documents from the DOD?

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                     What does it matter how I feel about it? You know, empty me and all that.
                     There's Trump's version and then there's his enemy's version. His enemy will never let up, but should he give up, that's the real question.

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                        ab:  It's called justice.

                        replyreport
                        1. 68

                           abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                           I agree, he shouldn't give up!
                           Later.

                           replyreport
                        2. 94

                           wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                           Do I detect an assumption of guilt, guilt without that tiresome requirement of a "trial by a jury of his peers"?

                           replyreport
                           1. 90

                              peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                              Wilderness:  Yep, Just like Hillary, Lock her up.
                              
                              https://www.rawstory.com/trump-document-confession/
                              
                              https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canad … gn=KARANGA

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                 Well, you're at least partially right this time - Trump should be treated no differently than Hillary.  Set free, that is, even though in illegal possession of secret documents.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 90

                                    peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                    Wilderness;  The difference is they couldn't find Hillary's "secret documents".  Trump has his for the world to see.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 94

                                       wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                       No, the difference is that  you don't want to acknowledge that Hillary's documents were found, nor do you want to acknowledge that instead of turning them over as requested she destroyed them.
                                       
                                       Lots of documentation for what was found, more on destruction.  You just don't have the same feelings towards Clinton as towards Trump so find it OK.

                                       report
                                    2. 80

                                       Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                       I must ask --- what do you feel about the 30,000 emails that have not been found?  It would seem they may be out there and someday surface. It's the unknown that disturbs me and knowing enough about technology to know the emails could still be sitting in someone's files. What bothers me she was told to provide them and she claimed she deleted them as being personal.
                                       
                                       Now, Trump has never denied taking or having the documents he took. And three times twice agencies in to remove any
                                       of the documents they wanted., and a third time the FBI searched and took documents.
                                       
                                       What interests me about him taking documents, why, what did he take them for, and what documents did he take? Could we see a dump of documents that show possible corruption that our Government was party to?  I mean this all seems very off to me. And Trump could be very much vengeful at this point. I mean let's face it he had any and all documents at his fingertips.  Payback can be very ugly. And he is running for the presidency. I sort of think he wanted some paper ammunition.

                                       report
                                       1. 94

                                          wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                          What do I feel about Hillary's crime spree with secret emails?
                                          
                                          That no one in the future can be charged with keeping secret documents, or putting them on illegal servers or phones.  That no one in the future can be charged with taking them.
                                          
                                          That we gave Ms. Clinton a "bye" on her crime means everyone else gets the same treatment.

                                          report
                                          1. 80

                                             Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                             You have made a good point. All or most involved with Hillary's secret servere and deleted emails got immunity and were exempt from being questioned.
                                             
                                             I must say Elon Musk has opened a real can of worms that will not be able to be ignored. And today he announce the best is yet to come. I have always known how corrupt the Democratic party is, but this takes the cake. 
                                             
                                             I would be ashamed to belong to or support the current Democratic party.

                                             report
                                          2. 68

                                             abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                             You mean like with a cloth?! I will never forget her {Hillary Clinton's} smug shrug, when she received softball treatment and responded in such a royal, condescending manner.
                                             Ugh, give me Trump any day, every day and twice on Tuesdays!

                                             report
                                             1. 94

                                                wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                                Agree.  I don't like Trump, and I disagreed with some things he did, but I will take him every day and twice on Tuesdays over Clinton. Or Biden, for that matter.

                                                report
                                       2. 90

                                          peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                          Sharlee:
                                          
                                          Trump's possible motive for stealing the classified documents
                                          
                                          https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … documents/
                                          
                                          The removal of Trump's Special Master
                                          
                                          https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … documents/

                                          report
                                          1. 80

                                             Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                                             Interesting article. I'm just not sure he would just take so many documents as keepsakes. I could see it may have been an ego thing.

                                             report
               2. 90

                  peoplepower73posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  ab:  But it's O.K. if you say I have Trump Derangement Syndrome and that Trump lives rent free in my head.  Isn't that a diagnosis?  See how hypocritical this can be?

                  replyreport
4. 68

   abwilliamsposted 16 months ago

   You are right, I was much too kind.

   replyreport