That's plausible deniability. Do you really think it was framed that way? Look at the google search linked earlier in this thread. The laptop story was written off as crazy Qanon conspiracy.
What would the statement look like if they genuinely thought there was a good chance it was Russian disinformation, but they weren't sure? How can we tell the difference between sincerity and plausible deniability?
That's plausible deniability. Do you really think it was framed that way? Look at the google search linked earlier in this thread. The laptop story was written off as crazy Qanon conspiracy.
What would the statement look like if they genuinely thought there was a good chance it was Russian disinformation, but they weren't sure? How can we tell the difference between sincerity and plausible deniability?
Of course you know the FBI had the laptop when the letter was published.
That's plausible deniability. Do you really think it was framed that way? Look at the google search linked earlier in this thread. The laptop story was written off as crazy Qanon conspiracy.
What would the statement look like if they genuinely thought there was a good chance it was Russian disinformation, but they weren't sure? How can we tell the difference between sincerity and plausible deniability?
Of course you know the FBI had the laptop when the letter was published.
That's plausible deniability. Do you really think it was framed that way? Look at the google search linked earlier in this thread. The laptop story was written off as crazy Qanon conspiracy.
What would the statement look like if they genuinely thought there was a good chance it was Russian disinformation, but they weren't sure? How can we tell the difference between sincerity and plausible deniability?
Of course you know the FBI had the laptop when the letter was published.
so?
Perhaps they could have given the American people a heads up as the 5th largest newspaper in the country was being censored.
That's plausible deniability. Do you really think it was framed that way? Look at the google search linked earlier in this thread. The laptop story was written off as crazy Qanon conspiracy.
I'm going to respond to the first sentence and say yes. Just like Matt Walsh's movie, it's plausible deniability. Political operatives aren't stupid, they cover their legal ****.
The laptop intrigues the ever living eff outta me. 2 people claim to have copies of it (Carlson and Guiliani) and I keep seeing more and more photos posted on Twitter from it (who knows where those sources are) and yet it's in the FBI's hands and we can't see it because of the Deep State. Forget about Twitter, talk to me about this. How is Hunter Biden not a bigger deal? Republicans have copies of his laptop for years and still nothing.
ETA: And I mean this. The letter didn't contain the language you said it did, you put it in there. Secondly, the laptop really is a magical item. The story makes little sense, and the fact that Republicans both find things from it and simultaneously claim the FBI won't let them see it is weird to me. It's not Hunter's laptop, it's Schrödinger's laptop. Everything on it both convicts the Bidens and doesn't exist at the same time. It's a Quantum Political Vehicle.
Thanks for straightening that issue out. Bad/inacvurate link from my Google search - my apologizes.
Your thanks and apologies would be easier to accept if you did me one small favor: Anytime you’re tempted to write “My understanding is” on MOL, think twice first.
What would you suggest instead of "my understanding"?
ETA: And I mean this. The letter didn't contain the language you said it did, you put it in there. Secondly, the laptop really is a magical item. The story makes little sense, and the fact that Republicans both find things from it and simultaneously claim the FBI won't let them see it is weird to me. It's not Hunter's laptop, it's Schrödinger's laptop. Everything on it both convicts the Bidens and doesn't exist at the same time. It's a Quantum Political Vehicle.
No gift option for Atlantic articles, but the gist of it is that although the indictment described Trump's disseminating of classified information at Bedminster (the recording where he basically destroys his "I declassified them" defense), it doesn't actually charge him with it, leaving the possibility open of further charges.
No gift option for Atlantic articles, but the gist of it is that although the indictment described Trump's disseminating of classified information at Bedminster (the recording where he basically destroys his "I declassified them" defense), it doesn't actually charge him with it, leaving the possibility open of further charges.
I would so love to serve on that jury. I would fly back to NJ to do my duty.
No gift option for Atlantic articles, but the gist of it is that although the indictment described Trump's disseminating of classified information at Bedminster (the recording where he basically destroys his "I declassified them" defense), it doesn't actually charge him with it, leaving the possibility open of further charges.
I read a commentary that the conspiracy part of the indictment, involving his assistant, deals with events that took place in Florida (moving and hiding boxes, etc.). In order to include the assistant as a co-defendant, the case was brought in Florida.
The fact that the case is being tried in FL and that Trump only needs to (convince/get to) one juror, I'm predicting a deadlock. At that point could prosecution drop the conspiracy charge and bring the obstruction charges to a DC court?
The federal judge presiding over the prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump in the classified documents case set an aggressive schedule on Tuesday, ordering a trial to begin as soon as Aug. 14.
While the timeline set by the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, is likely to be delayed by extensive pretrial litigation — including over how to handle classified material — its brisk pace suggests that she is seeking to avoid any criticism for dragging her feet or for slow-walking the proceeding. In each of four other criminal trials she has overseen that were identified in a New York Times review, she has initially set a relatively quick trial date and later pushed it back.
Looks like the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for prominent #traitor and #criminal Donald Trump, who is still somehow at large, has received some recent enhancements. pic.twitter.com/LPtNdxoTcW
At Bedminster last night, Trump says some of the best lawyers and law firms in the country contacted him offering their help but he told them he didn’t need it. pic.twitter.com/63UkRZVqog
Trump: Whatever documents a President decides to take with him, he has the absolute right to take them. He has the absolute right to keep them or he can give them back.. that’s the law pic.twitter.com/WaezsyQMUu
The newly unsealed portion of the affidavit says the surveillance footage shows that four days after the FBI interview, Nauta moved “approximately fifty Bankers boxes” out of a storage room. The document adds that the FBI “did not observe this quantity of boxes being returned.”
At the time, the Justice Department was awaiting a response from Trump’s legal team to a grand jury subpoena, which sought the return to the government of any additional documents with classified markings.
On June 2 — just a day before FBI officials were to arrive at Mar-a-Lago to collect documents in response to the subpoena — security camera footage shows Nauta “moving twenty-five to thirty boxes, some of which were brown cardboard boxes and others of which were Bankers boxes,” back to the storage room, a newly unsealed part of the affidavit says.
That is a key distinction for investigators, because it allegedly shows that Nauta, apparently at Trump’s direction, moved in total “approximately 64 boxes from the STORAGE ROOM area” in May 2022 but “only returned 25-30 boxes” to that room.
ATLANTA — The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously dismissed former president Donald Trump’s petition to block an Atlanta-area district attorney from investigating him over allegations of 2020 election interference and to throw out evidence gathered by a special purpose grand jury in the case.
Trump’s attorneys had asked Georgia’s top court late Thursday to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) and her office from further probing whether Trump and his allies broke the law when they sought to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss in the state.
The Trump motion also sought to quash the final report of the special grand jury. It asked the Supreme Court to “stay all proceedings related to and flowing from the special purpose grand jury’s investigation” — a request made just weeks before Willis is expected to announce a charging decision in the high-profile case.
But in an opinion published late Monday, the nine-member Supreme Court dismissed the petition, writing that Trump had not proved the “extraordinary circumstances” that would warrant an intervention by the state’s top court. The decision said that the petition lacked proof that his constitutional rights had been violated; that “the facts or the law necessary” to remove Willis from the case; or that other courts had rejected his claims.
I won’t be surprised if Georgia hands down an indictment this week. He’s already making up his own laws to defend himself. This guy should be in a sanatorium.
What would the statement look like if they genuinely thought there was a good chance it was Russian disinformation, but they weren't sure? How can we tell the difference between sincerity and plausible deniability?