OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.

It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.

If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.

micky wrote:
> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.
>
> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
>
> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.
>

Truth be told, if President Trump was not running for reelection, none
of these fake lawsuits would have ever been filed...and that should
scare everyone on both sides of the political aisle.

The US government is completely corrupt.

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:49:59 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.
>
> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
>
> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.

True, they never cease to disgust. It's become a sick cult that worships at the alter
of the orange clown. Like Trump said back in 2016, he could shoot someone on
Fifth Ave and they would still love him. He knew then that he had them conned.
That POS Pence is a classic. He said before the indictment that he hoped that the
DOJ would avoid indicting Trump. Then when they did, instead of just saying that
now that they did, it's up to a jury to look at the evidence and decide, he joined
the mob that's claiming how awful it is for a president to be charging his political
opponent. Just like Jan 6, Pence does whatever he thinks is best for him at the
moment. When America needed him, in the two months after the election, he was
MIA. He could have come out and said that he's looked at the stolen election claims,
that there is nothing of substance and that he accepts the results, that Biden and
Harris won. Instead, he's finally saying that now. So, if Trump gets convicted, two
years from now, maybe Pence will be writing a book saying how what Trump did
was a crime. Meanwhile, IDK why Pence goes through these contortions. He has
no chance of winning the GOP nomination, the Trumpers hate him for not doing
what Trump wanted on Jan 6. The Democrats would never vote for him in the
general election and I doubt independents have much use for him. He's on my
short list of the despicable that I will never vote for.

On 6/11/23 03:34, Slevin wrote:
> micky wrote:
>> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.
>>
>>   It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
>> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
>> documents?  When you're president, will you take them home and
>> everywhere and leave them lying around?   Assuming:  You say No.    Why
>> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
>>
>> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.
>>
>
> Truth be told, if President Trump was not running for reelection, none
> of these fake lawsuits would have ever been filed...and that should
> scare everyone on both sides of the political aisle.
>
> The US government is completely corrupt.

Well stated.
Libs think they can ride the back of this tiger
and not eventually get eaten by him. What goes
around come around.

On 6/11/2023 8:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:49:59 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.
>>
>> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
>> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
>> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
>> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
>> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
>>
>> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.
>
> True, they never cease to disgust. It's become a sick cult that worships at the alter
> of the orange clown. Like Trump said back in 2016, he could shoot someone on
> Fifth Ave and they would still love him. He knew then that he had them conned.
> That POS Pence is a classic. He said before the indictment that he hoped that the
> DOJ would avoid indicting Trump. Then when they did, instead of just saying that
> now that they did, it's up to a jury to look at the evidence and decide, he joined
> the mob that's claiming how awful it is for a president to be charging his political
> opponent. Just like Jan 6, Pence does whatever he thinks is best for him at the
> moment. When America needed him, in the two months after the election, he was
> MIA. He could have come out and said that he's looked at the stolen election claims,
> that there is nothing of substance and that he accepts the results, that Biden and
> Harris won. Instead, he's finally saying that now. So, if Trump gets convicted, two
> years from now, maybe Pence will be writing a book saying how what Trump did
> was a crime. Meanwhile, IDK why Pence goes through these contortions. He has
> no chance of winning the GOP nomination, the Trumpers hate him for not doing
> what Trump wanted on Jan 6. The Democrats would never vote for him in the
> general election and I doubt independents have much use for him. He's on my
> short list of the despicable that I will never vote for.

You have been duped by the media and are like Skinner's rats even after
finding you are following the wrong path you continue to use it due to
your conditioning.

No sense arguing with you, we will just continue irritating you to drive
you nuts.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:18:53 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
> On 6/11/2023 8:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:49:59 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
> >> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.
> >>
> >> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
> >> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
> >> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
> >> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
> >> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
> >>
> >> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.
> >
> > True, they never cease to disgust. It's become a sick cult that worships at the alter
> > of the orange clown. Like Trump said back in 2016, he could shoot someone on
> > Fifth Ave and they would still love him. He knew then that he had them conned.
> > That POS Pence is a classic. He said before the indictment that he hoped that the
> > DOJ would avoid indicting Trump. Then when they did, instead of just saying that
> > now that they did, it's up to a jury to look at the evidence and decide, he joined
> > the mob that's claiming how awful it is for a president to be charging his political
> > opponent. Just like Jan 6, Pence does whatever he thinks is best for him at the
> > moment. When America needed him, in the two months after the election, he was
> > MIA. He could have come out and said that he's looked at the stolen election claims,
> > that there is nothing of substance and that he accepts the results, that Biden and
> > Harris won. Instead, he's finally saying that now. So, if Trump gets convicted, two
> > years from now, maybe Pence will be writing a book saying how what Trump did
> > was a crime. Meanwhile, IDK why Pence goes through these contortions. He has
> > no chance of winning the GOP nomination, the Trumpers hate him for not doing
> > what Trump wanted on Jan 6. The Democrats would never vote for him in the
> > general election and I doubt independents have much use for him. He's on my
> > short list of the despicable that I will never vote for.
> You have been duped by the media and are like Skinner's rats even after
> finding you are following the wrong path you continue to use it due to
> your conditioning.
>
> No sense arguing with you, we will just continue irritating you to drive
> you nuts.

As usual, no discussion of the facts I present, just ad hominem BS. Whether it's an
attack on the Capitol incited by Trump or taking highly classified documents that he
had no right to and refusing to give them back, obstructing justice, no matter, it's all
just a big joke to you. And sadly to most Republicans as well. That's why I left the
party in disgust and won't be voting for them.

On 6/11/2023 11:23 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:18:53 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
>> On 6/11/2023 8:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:49:59 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>>>> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.
>>>>
>>>> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
>>>> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
>>>> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
>>>> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
>>>> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
>>>>
>>>> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.
>>>
>>> True, they never cease to disgust. It's become a sick cult that worships at the alter
>>> of the orange clown. Like Trump said back in 2016, he could shoot someone on
>>> Fifth Ave and they would still love him. He knew then that he had them conned.
>>> That POS Pence is a classic. He said before the indictment that he hoped that the
>>> DOJ would avoid indicting Trump. Then when they did, instead of just saying that
>>> now that they did, it's up to a jury to look at the evidence and decide, he joined
>>> the mob that's claiming how awful it is for a president to be charging his political
>>> opponent. Just like Jan 6, Pence does whatever he thinks is best for him at the
>>> moment. When America needed him, in the two months after the election, he was
>>> MIA. He could have come out and said that he's looked at the stolen election claims,
>>> that there is nothing of substance and that he accepts the results, that Biden and
>>> Harris won. Instead, he's finally saying that now. So, if Trump gets convicted, two
>>> years from now, maybe Pence will be writing a book saying how what Trump did
>>> was a crime. Meanwhile, IDK why Pence goes through these contortions. He has
>>> no chance of winning the GOP nomination, the Trumpers hate him for not doing
>>> what Trump wanted on Jan 6. The Democrats would never vote for him in the
>>> general election and I doubt independents have much use for him. He's on my
>>> short list of the despicable that I will never vote for.
>> You have been duped by the media and are like Skinner's rats even after
>> finding you are following the wrong path you continue to use it due to
>> your conditioning.
>>
>> No sense arguing with you, we will just continue irritating you to drive
>> you nuts.
>
> As usual, no discussion of the facts I present, just ad hominem BS. Whether it's an
> attack on the Capitol incited by Trump or taking highly classified documents that he
> had no right to and refusing to give them back, obstructing justice, no matter, it's all
> just a big joke to you. And sadly to most Republicans as well. That's why I left the
> party in disgust and won't be voting for them.
>

Gotcha.

trader_4 wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:18:53 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
>> On 6/11/2023 8:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:49:59 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>>>> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.
>>>>
>>>> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
>>>> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
>>>> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
>>>> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
>>>> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
>>>>
>>>> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.
>>> True, they never cease to disgust. It's become a sick cult that worships at the alter
>>> of the orange clown. Like Trump said back in 2016, he could shoot someone on
>>> Fifth Ave and they would still love him. He knew then that he had them conned.
>>> That POS Pence is a classic. He said before the indictment that he hoped that the
>>> DOJ would avoid indicting Trump. Then when they did, instead of just saying that
>>> now that they did, it's up to a jury to look at the evidence and decide, he joined
>>> the mob that's claiming how awful it is for a president to be charging his political
>>> opponent. Just like Jan 6, Pence does whatever he thinks is best for him at the
>>> moment. When America needed him, in the two months after the election, he was
>>> MIA. He could have come out and said that he's looked at the stolen election claims,
>>> that there is nothing of substance and that he accepts the results, that Biden and
>>> Harris won. Instead, he's finally saying that now. So, if Trump gets convicted, two
>>> years from now, maybe Pence will be writing a book saying how what Trump did
>>> was a crime. Meanwhile, IDK why Pence goes through these contortions. He has
>>> no chance of winning the GOP nomination, the Trumpers hate him for not doing
>>> what Trump wanted on Jan 6. The Democrats would never vote for him in the
>>> general election and I doubt independents have much use for him. He's on my
>>> short list of the despicable that I will never vote for.
>> You have been duped by the media and are like Skinner's rats even after
>> finding you are following the wrong path you continue to use it due to
>> your conditioning.
>>
>> No sense arguing with you, we will just continue irritating you to drive
>> you nuts.
> As usual, no discussion of the facts I present, just ad hominem BS. Whether it's an
> attack on the Capitol incited by Trump or taking highly classified documents that he
> had no right to and refusing to give them back, obstructing justice, no matter, it's all
> just a big joke to you. And sadly to most Republicans as well. That's why I left the
> party in disgust and won't be voting for them.
>

Even lefty-loon Rachael Madcow acknowledged if President Trump backed
out of the 2024 race, the fake charges would likely be dropped.

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 11 Jun 2023 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:49:59?PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.
>>
>> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
>> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
>> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
>> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
>> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
>>
>> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.
>
>True, they never cease to disgust. It's become a sick cult that worships at the alter
>of the orange clown. Like Trump said back in 2016, he could shoot someone on
>Fifth Ave and they would still love him. He knew then that he had them conned.
>That POS Pence is a classic. He said before the indictment that he hoped that the
>DOJ would avoid indicting Trump. Then when they did, instead of just saying that
>now that they did, it's up to a jury to look at the evidence and decide, he joined
>the mob that's claiming how awful it is for a president to be charging his political
>opponent. Just like Jan 6, Pence does whatever he thinks is best for him at the

I hate to say it but there is one place I agree with stumpie. I think
he said this Pence is a wimp.

If I were in Pence's shoes Jan 7 or whenever I could find trump,
preferably with 10 or 20 other people there, whether or not invited, I
would have gone up to him and with the back of my hand slapped him as
hard as I could, with all my strength. I would expect the secret
service people there would start**, move a inch or so, and then do
nothing.

Then, unless he started apologizing, which of course he would not do, I
would do it again, as hard as I could. Then I would leave.

**to appear or come suddenly into action, life, view, etc.; rise or
issue suddenly forth. Flinch would be the word I wanted but it
includes fear.

I've been mugged but in each case, there was no oppportunity for a
fight. Tthe muggers left immediately. Other than that, I've never been
in a fight or in a situation that called for a fight, by any standards.

I've never hit anyone except one guy, a fraternity brother who was being
annoying and obnoxious, and I only slapped him, and not as hard as I
could, and he did nothing in return. So I'm not a violent guy, but then
no one ever tried to get me killed like trump did Pence.

I don't think there would be any legal consequences for his slapping
trump. No one would do anything, and if they did charge him, all he'd
have to say is, "He tried to get me killed." Not only that, Pence would
probably get more votes, LOL, maybe a lot of the 30% of Republicans who
are die-hard trumpers would switch to him for being enough of a "man" to
hit trump. We need a real man in the white house. Of course it's too
late now to hit him for something he did 2 years ago. Maybe Pence could
goad trump into insulting Pence's wife. That would justify hitting him
(once, probably not twice) but I wouldn't know how to goad trump in such
a targeted manner.

>moment. When America needed him, in the two months after the election, he was
>MIA. He could have come out and said that he's looked at the stolen election claims,
>that there is nothing of substance and that he accepts the results, that Biden and
>Harris won. Instead, he's finally saying that now. So, if Trump gets convicted, two
>years from now, maybe Pence will be writing a book saying how what Trump did
>was a crime. Meanwhile, IDK why Pence goes through these contortions. He has
>no chance of winning the GOP nomination, the Trumpers hate him for not doing
>what Trump wanted on Jan 6. The Democrats would never vote for him in the
>general election and I doubt independents have much use for him. He's on my
>short list of the despicable that I will never vote for.

DeSantis, Pence, Tim from Carolina, and McCarthy are the ones I've heard
defend trump. There are probably a lot more.

Romney is the only one I think I've heard criticizing him since the
indictment.

On 6/11/2023 9:35 AM, Skid Marks wrote:
> trader_4 wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:18:53 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2023 8:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:49:59 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>>>>> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy
>>>>> rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against
>>>>> his
>>>>> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat
>>>>> secret
>>>>> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
>>>>> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
>>>>> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no
>>>>> higher.
>>>> True, they never cease to disgust. It's become a sick cult that
>>>> worships at the alter
>>>> of the orange clown. Like Trump said back in 2016, he could shoot
>>>> someone on
>>>> Fifth Ave and they would still love him. He knew then that he had
>>>> them conned.
>>>> That POS Pence is a classic. He said before the indictment that he
>>>> hoped that the
>>>> DOJ would avoid indicting Trump. Then when they did, instead of just
>>>> saying that
>>>> now that they did, it's up to a jury to look at the evidence and
>>>> decide, he joined
>>>> the mob that's claiming how awful it is for a president to be
>>>> charging his political
>>>> opponent. Just like Jan 6, Pence does whatever he thinks is best for
>>>> him at the
>>>> moment. When America needed him, in the two months after the
>>>> election, he was
>>>> MIA. He could have come out and said that he's looked at the stolen
>>>> election claims,
>>>> that there is nothing of substance and that he accepts the results,
>>>> that Biden and
>>>> Harris won. Instead, he's finally saying that now. So, if Trump gets
>>>> convicted, two
>>>> years from now, maybe Pence will be writing a book saying how what
>>>> Trump did
>>>> was a crime. Meanwhile, IDK why Pence goes through these
>>>> contortions. He has
>>>> no chance of winning the GOP nomination, the Trumpers hate him for
>>>> not doing
>>>> what Trump wanted on Jan 6. The Democrats would never vote for him
>>>> in the
>>>> general election and I doubt independents have much use for him.
>>>> He's on my
>>>> short list of the despicable that I will never vote for.
>>> You have been duped by the media and are like Skinner's rats even after
>>> finding you are following the wrong path you continue to use it due to
>>> your conditioning.
>>>
>>> No sense arguing with you, we will just continue irritating you to drive
>>> you nuts.
>> As usual, no discussion of the facts I present, just ad hominem BS.
>> Whether it's an
>> attack on the Capitol incited by Trump or taking highly classified
>> documents that he
>> had no right to and refusing to give them back, obstructing justice,
>> no matter, it's all
>> just a big joke to you.  And sadly to most Republicans as well.
>> That's why I left the
>> party in disgust and won't be voting for them.
>>
>
> Even lefty-loon Rachael Madcow acknowledged if President Trump backed
> out of the 2024 race, the fake charges would likely be dropped.
>

Rachael at least talks about reality. You NEVER do.

On 6/11/2023 1:07 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 11 Jun 2023 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
> <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:49:59?PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>>> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.
>>>
>>> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
>>> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
>>> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
>>> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
>>> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
>>>
>>> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.
>>
>> True, they never cease to disgust. It's become a sick cult that worships at the alter
>> of the orange clown. Like Trump said back in 2016, he could shoot someone on
>> Fifth Ave and they would still love him. He knew then that he had them conned.
>> That POS Pence is a classic. He said before the indictment that he hoped that the
>> DOJ would avoid indicting Trump. Then when they did, instead of just saying that
>> now that they did, it's up to a jury to look at the evidence and decide, he joined
>> the mob that's claiming how awful it is for a president to be charging his political
>> opponent. Just like Jan 6, Pence does whatever he thinks is best for him at the
>
> I hate to say it but there is one place I agree with stumpie. I think
> he said this Pence is a wimp.

Pence was man enough to stand up to trumps demands that he help trump
steal the election, and smart enough to make sure he did not get
transported away or disappeared so they could not finish the count. Damn
lucky for America he did what he did. Although, perhaps by now trump
would be locked up or dead otherwise.

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 11 Jun 2023 13:31:43 -0700, Bob F
<bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/11/2023 9:35 AM, Skid Marks wrote:
>> trader_4 wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 10:18:53?AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2023 8:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:49:59?PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>>>>>> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy
>>>>>> rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat
>>>>>> secret
>>>>>> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
>>>>>> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
>>>>>> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no
>>>>>> higher.
>>>>> True, they never cease to disgust. It's become a sick cult that
>>>>> worships at the alter
>>>>> of the orange clown. Like Trump said back in 2016, he could shoot
>>>>> someone on
>>>>> Fifth Ave and they would still love him. He knew then that he had
>>>>> them conned.
>>>>> That POS Pence is a classic. He said before the indictment that he
>>>>> hoped that the
>>>>> DOJ would avoid indicting Trump. Then when they did, instead of just
>>>>> saying that
>>>>> now that they did, it's up to a jury to look at the evidence and
>>>>> decide, he joined
>>>>> the mob that's claiming how awful it is for a president to be
>>>>> charging his political
>>>>> opponent. Just like Jan 6, Pence does whatever he thinks is best for
>>>>> him at the
>>>>> moment. When America needed him, in the two months after the
>>>>> election, he was
>>>>> MIA. He could have come out and said that he's looked at the stolen
>>>>> election claims,
>>>>> that there is nothing of substance and that he accepts the results,
>>>>> that Biden and
>>>>> Harris won. Instead, he's finally saying that now. So, if Trump gets
>>>>> convicted, two
>>>>> years from now, maybe Pence will be writing a book saying how what
>>>>> Trump did
>>>>> was a crime. Meanwhile, IDK why Pence goes through these
>>>>> contortions. He has
>>>>> no chance of winning the GOP nomination, the Trumpers hate him for
>>>>> not doing
>>>>> what Trump wanted on Jan 6. The Democrats would never vote for him
>>>>> in the
>>>>> general election and I doubt independents have much use for him.
>>>>> He's on my
>>>>> short list of the despicable that I will never vote for.
>>>> You have been duped by the media and are like Skinner's rats even after
>>>> finding you are following the wrong path you continue to use it due to
>>>> your conditioning.
>>>>
>>>> No sense arguing with you, we will just continue irritating you to drive
>>>> you nuts.
>>> As usual, no discussion of the facts I present, just ad hominem BS.
>>> Whether it's an
>>> attack on the Capitol incited by Trump or taking highly classified
>>> documents that he
>>> had no right to and refusing to give them back, obstructing justice,
>>> no matter, it's all
>>> just a big joke to you.  And sadly to most Republicans as well.
>>> That's why I left the
>>> party in disgust and won't be voting for them.
>>>
>>
>> Even lefty-loon Rachael Madcow acknowledged if President Trump backed
>> out of the 2024 race, the fake charges would likely be dropped.
>>
>
>Rachael at least talks about reality. You NEVER do.

It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said. It
might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
chair and dreamt it.

Ah, yes, Fox, the eternal source of nonsense says "Maddow began by
telling O’Donnell, "You have to wonder if the Justice Department is
considering whether there is some political solution to this criminal
problem. Whether part of the issue here is not just that Trump has
committed crimes, but that Trump has committed crimes and plans on being
back in the White House."

She then clarified what she meant, saying, "Do they consider as part of
a potential plea offer, something that would proscribe him… proscribe
him from running for office again? I don’t know."

O’Donnell played with the idea, though he claimed such a deal would have
to be proposed by Trump’s legal team, otherwise it might convey that the
Department of Justice is out to stop Trump from running for office."

So even Fox doesn't say "likely" that something Marks through itn.

And it's a hypothetical like I said it mighht be. They've been talking
about almost nothing else for over 2 days, and they have to say
something new.

So it's not an opinion, it's just a suggestion to fill space, she didn't
say "likely", and it won't happen.

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 11 Jun 2023 13:37:58 -0700, Bob F
<bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/11/2023 1:07 PM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 11 Jun 2023 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
>> <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:49:59?PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>>>> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.
>>>>
>>>> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
>>>> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
>>>> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
>>>> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
>>>> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
>>>>
>>>> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.
>>>
>>> True, they never cease to disgust. It's become a sick cult that worships at the alter
>>> of the orange clown. Like Trump said back in 2016, he could shoot someone on
>>> Fifth Ave and they would still love him. He knew then that he had them conned.
>>> That POS Pence is a classic. He said before the indictment that he hoped that the
>>> DOJ would avoid indicting Trump. Then when they did, instead of just saying that
>>> now that they did, it's up to a jury to look at the evidence and decide, he joined
>>> the mob that's claiming how awful it is for a president to be charging his political
>>> opponent. Just like Jan 6, Pence does whatever he thinks is best for him at the
>>
>> I hate to say it but there is one place I agree with stumpie. I think
>> he said this Pence is a wimp.
>
>Pence was man enough to stand up to trumps demands that he help trump
>steal the election, and smart enough to make sure he did not get
>transported away or disappeared so they could not finish the count. Damn
>lucky for America he did what he did. Although, perhaps by now trump
>would be locked up or dead otherwise.

True.

I have given him credit for that on at least one prior occasion, and he
had a good day, but even then he had to ask Dan Quail if he was stuck
and had to do it (and did he ask Lawrence Tribe too?) and then later in
that stentorian voice of his he said he put in all his knowledge and
study to find out the right answer, as if study is required, as if a 12
year old doesn't know that it's wrong to use a bunch of lies to force
the election into the House of Repre.

Would you, any of you here, have needed advice to know what the right
thing to do was?

And he was smart not to get into that car. Although what if he had had
a stroke and died that morning? Surely that doesn't mean the meeting
can't be held. Surely someone else could chair the meeting. The chair
isn't even voting, not even in the case of ties, so anyone should be
able to do it.

Anoother big problem is our constituation, where the House would vote by
states and becasue Dems mostly live in fewer states than do Reps, Reps
would get a far outsize vote. It's a relic of when the 13 colonies were
almost separate countries and it shoudl be changed but Republicans will
never agree to it. It should be not by states but by Representatives.
There can be an error of 3 or even 10, when one seat is vacant or
someone gets bribed, but most elections will not be that close. It's a
great Constitution, but it has flaws.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 4:07:34 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 11 Jun 2023 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 6:49:59?PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
> >> OT Republican candidates signal their intention to ignore secrecy rules.
> >>
> >> It again amazes me how many Republicans are defending trump against his
> >> indictment. I hope votes and reporters ask them, How do you treat secret
> >> documents? When you're president, will you take them home and
> >> everywhere and leave them lying around? Assuming: You say No. Why
> >> should we believe you, and why do you have a lower standard for trump.
> >>
> >> If you're willing to excuse trump, we know your standards are no higher.
> >
> >True, they never cease to disgust. It's become a sick cult that worships at the alter
> >of the orange clown. Like Trump said back in 2016, he could shoot someone on
> >Fifth Ave and they would still love him. He knew then that he had them conned.
> >That POS Pence is a classic. He said before the indictment that he hoped that the
> >DOJ would avoid indicting Trump. Then when they did, instead of just saying that
> >now that they did, it's up to a jury to look at the evidence and decide, he joined
> >the mob that's claiming how awful it is for a president to be charging his political
> >opponent. Just like Jan 6, Pence does whatever he thinks is best for him at the
> I hate to say it but there is one place I agree with stumpie. I think
> he said this Pence is a wimp.
>
> If I were in Pence's shoes Jan 7 or whenever I could find trump,
> preferably with 10 or 20 other people there, whether or not invited, I
> would have gone up to him and with the back of my hand slapped him as
> hard as I could, with all my strength. I would expect the secret
> service people there would start**, move a inch or so, and then do
> nothing.
>
> Then, unless he started apologizing, which of course he would not do, I
> would do it again, as hard as I could. Then I would leave.
>
> **to appear or come suddenly into action, life, view, etc.; rise or
> issue suddenly forth. Flinch would be the word I wanted but it
> includes fear.
>
> I've been mugged but in each case, there was no oppportunity for a
> fight. Tthe muggers left immediately. Other than that, I've never been
> in a fight or in a situation that called for a fight, by any standards.
>
> I've never hit anyone except one guy, a fraternity brother who was being
> annoying and obnoxious, and I only slapped him, and not as hard as I
> could, and he did nothing in return. So I'm not a violent guy, but then
> no one ever tried to get me killed like trump did Pence.
>
> I don't think there would be any legal consequences for his slapping
> trump. No one would do anything, and if they did charge him, all he'd
> have to say is, "He tried to get me killed." Not only that, Pence would
> probably get more votes, LOL, maybe a lot of the 30% of Republicans who
> are die-hard trumpers would switch to him for being enough of a "man" to
> hit trump. We need a real man in the white house. Of course it's too
> late now to hit him for something he did 2 years ago. Maybe Pence could
> goad trump into insulting Pence's wife. That would justify hitting him
> (once, probably not twice) but I wouldn't know how to goad trump in such
> a targeted manner.
> >moment. When America needed him, in the two months after the election, he was
> >MIA. He could have come out and said that he's looked at the stolen election claims,
> >that there is nothing of substance and that he accepts the results, that Biden and
> >Harris won. Instead, he's finally saying that now. So, if Trump gets convicted, two
> >years from now, maybe Pence will be writing a book saying how what Trump did
> >was a crime. Meanwhile, IDK why Pence goes through these contortions. He has
> >no chance of winning the GOP nomination, the Trumpers hate him for not doing
> >what Trump wanted on Jan 6. The Democrats would never vote for him in the
> >general election and I doubt independents have much use for him. He's on my
> >short list of the despicable that I will never vote for.
> DeSantis, Pence, Tim from Carolina, and McCarthy are the ones I've heard
> defend trump. There are probably a lot more.
>
> Romney is the only one I think I've heard criticizing him since the
> indictment.

There are others who spoke the truth. Chris Christie, Gov Chris Sununu, Bill Barr
who was on a Sunday show and made it clear the case is solid, Trump screwed up
and said that if half of the charges stick, Trump is toast. The Senate leadership,
all three of them, didn't support Trump, they were mostly just quiet. Sadly there are
more to add to your list that chose to ignore the facts and plow ahead. One is Haley.
I would have hoped for more, but she's on the witch hunt train. Another is Lindsey Graham,
no real surprise there, he's always blowing in the wind. They clearly are catering to
the Trumpers, afraid of telling them the truth, or at least just saying it's time to move
on from Trump, so the shit show goes on.

micky wrote:
> It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
> suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said. It
> might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
> chair and dreamt it.

Blah blah blah.
President Trump simply forgot to declassify the docs before he left
office on Jan 20, 2021. Sort of like forgetting to renew your license
plates. No big deal and certainly not criminal.

On 6/12/23 13:01, Slevin wrote:
> micky wrote:
>> It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
>> suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said.  It
>> might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
>> chair and dreamt it.
>
> Blah blah blah.
> President Trump simply forgot to declassify the docs before he left
> office on Jan 20, 2021.  Sort of like forgetting to renew your license
> plates. No big deal and certainly not criminal.

Not to mention the standing declassification order when
he took documents off site

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 18:44:08 -0700, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 6/12/23 13:01, Slevin wrote:
>> micky wrote:
>>> It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
>>> suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said.  It
>>> might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
>>> chair and dreamt it.
>>
>> Blah blah blah.
>> President Trump simply forgot to declassify the docs before he left
>> office on Jan 20, 2021.  Sort of like forgetting to renew your license
>> plates. No big deal and certainly not criminal.
>
>
>Not to mention the standing declassification order when
>he took documents off site

Since you were reportedly in the Air Force for a period of time, you are
probably well aware that there is no such thing as a "standing
declassification order", nor is such a thing even possible.

On 6/12/23 19:15, Jim Joyce wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 18:44:08 -0700, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 6/12/23 13:01, Slevin wrote:
>>> micky wrote:
>>>> It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
>>>> suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said.  It
>>>> might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
>>>> chair and dreamt it.
>>>
>>> Blah blah blah.
>>> President Trump simply forgot to declassify the docs before he left
>>> office on Jan 20, 2021.  Sort of like forgetting to renew your license
>>> plates. No big deal and certainly not criminal.
>>
>>
>> Not to mention the standing declassification order when
>> he took documents off site
>
> Since you were reportedly in the Air Force for a period of time, you are
> probably well aware that there is no such thing as a "standing
> declassification order", nor is such a thing even possible.
>
In your twisted imagination.
Trump as commander in chief definitely had
that authority.
And yes, I was in the Air Force when President
Pea Nut ran his mouth about our TOP SECRET
satellite capabilities. We were told he
could because he was the commander in chief
but we could not.

On Mon, 12 Jun 23 20:01:48 UTC, Slevin <slevin@192.168.1.1> wrote:

>micky wrote:
>> It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
>> suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said. It
>> might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
>> chair and dreamt it.
>
>Blah blah blah.
>President Trump simply forgot to declassify the docs before he left
>office on Jan 20, 2021. Sort of like forgetting to renew your license
>plates. No big deal and certainly not criminal.
Classified or not, showing those documents to ANYONE is criminal.

On 6/12/23 20:01, Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 23 20:01:48 UTC, Slevin <slevin@192.168.1.1> wrote:
>
>> micky wrote:
>>> It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
>>> suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said. It
>>> might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
>>> chair and dreamt it.
>>
>> Blah blah blah.
>> President Trump simply forgot to declassify the docs before he left
>> office on Jan 20, 2021. Sort of like forgetting to renew your license
>> plates. No big deal and certainly not criminal.
> Classified or not, showing those documents to ANYONE is criminal.

Only in your imagination.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 19:41:12 -0700, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 6/12/23 19:15, Jim Joyce wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 18:44:08 -0700, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/12/23 13:01, Slevin wrote:
>>>> micky wrote:
>>>>> It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
>>>>> suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said.  It
>>>>> might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
>>>>> chair and dreamt it.
>>>>
>>>> Blah blah blah.
>>>> President Trump simply forgot to declassify the docs before he left
>>>> office on Jan 20, 2021.  Sort of like forgetting to renew your license
>>>> plates. No big deal and certainly not criminal.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not to mention the standing declassification order when
>>> he took documents off site
>>
>> Since you were reportedly in the Air Force for a period of time, you are
>> probably well aware that there is no such thing as a "standing
>> declassification order", nor is such a thing even possible.
>>
>
>In your twisted imagination.

And in my 20-year+ USAF career, where I held a TS-SCI clearance for
virtually that entire time. I handled classified docs all day every day.

I can't think of a time when I handled a classified doc that didn't have
one or more copies somewhere else, either physical or electronic, so
what happens in your twisted imagination when the President unilaterally
declassifies the copy in his possession? How do the other copies
magically also become unclassified? How do the various affected
organizations get notified, and how do the documents get marked with
their new status, especially when that status has been changed
telepathically? It's all impossible, which is why it never happened.

You can listen to people who know, or you can listen to your handlers,
the folks who craft your narrative. The people who know will tell you
that there is no such thing as a standing declassification order and
there never could be. It would be instant chaos. There is a standard
process, and that process must be followed. There is no exception for
the President or anyone else.

Besides, most of the criminal counts have nothing to do with the
question of classification. Most of it deals will unlawfully retaining
materials that belong to the government and then lying about it.

On 6/12/23 21:18, Jim Joyce wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 19:41:12 -0700, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 6/12/23 19:15, Jim Joyce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 18:44:08 -0700, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/12/23 13:01, Slevin wrote:
>>>>> micky wrote:
>>>>>> It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
>>>>>> suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said.  It
>>>>>> might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
>>>>>> chair and dreamt it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Blah blah blah.
>>>>> President Trump simply forgot to declassify the docs before he left
>>>>> office on Jan 20, 2021.  Sort of like forgetting to renew your license
>>>>> plates. No big deal and certainly not criminal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the standing declassification order when
>>>> he took documents off site
>>>
>>> Since you were reportedly in the Air Force for a period of time, you are
>>> probably well aware that there is no such thing as a "standing
>>> declassification order", nor is such a thing even possible.
>>>
>>
>> In your twisted imagination.
>
> And in my 20-year+ USAF career, where I held a TS-SCI clearance for
> virtually that entire time. I handled classified docs all day every day.
In my six years, so did I.
> I can't think of a time when I handled a classified doc that didn't have
> one or more copies somewhere else, either physical or electronic, so
> what happens in your twisted imagination when the President unilaterally
> declassifies the copy in his possession?
Sorry Lefty, that is his right.
And yes, I remember what a pain-in-the-but the second
worst president in our history did it. That is the way
it goes.
> How do the other copies
> magically also become unclassified? How do the various affected
> organizations get notified, and how do the documents get marked with
> their new status, especially when that status has been changed
> telepathically? It's all impossible, which is why it never happened.
He is the commander in chief. It is his right. Read
the constitution
> You can listen to people who know, or you can listen to your handlers,
> the folks who craft your narrative. The people who know will tell you
> that there is no such thing as a standing declassification order and
> there never could be. It would be instant chaos. There is a standard
> process, and that process must be followed. There is no exception for
> the President or anyone else.
Banana republic here we come.
> Besides, most of the criminal counts have nothing to do with the
> question of classification. Most of it deals will unlawfully retaining
> materials that belong to the government and then lying about it.
You guys made that up.
You wore the uniform and you are happy with politicizing
our law enforcement to achieve what you can not at the
ballot box? End justify the means?

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2022/08/918/516/cartoon-081022-copy.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Clare Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 23 20:01:48 UTC, Slevin <slevin@192.168.1.1> wrote:
>
>> micky wrote:
>>> It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
>>> suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said. It
>>> might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
>>> chair and dreamt it.
>> Blah blah blah.
>> President Trump simply forgot to declassify the docs before he left
>> office on Jan 20, 2021. Sort of like forgetting to renew your license
>> plates. No big deal and certainly not criminal.
> Classified or not, showing those documents to ANYONE is criminal.

If President Trump sprinkles some holy water on them, they become
declassified.
If the docs are not classified, why is showing them criminal?

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 4:01:55 PM UTC-4, Slevin wrote:
> micky wrote:
> > It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
> > suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said. It
> > might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
> > chair and dreamt it.
> Blah blah blah.
> President Trump simply forgot to declassify the docs before he left
> office on Jan 20, 2021. Sort of like forgetting to renew your license
> plates. No big deal and certainly not criminal.

And if that is true, what legitimate need did Trump have for things like the nuclear
weapons capability of the US and our allies or the DOD contingency plan for an
attack on Iran? And it's OK with Republicans if Trump did declassify all that he
took, like he claims, with a blanket order, no review back to those that created the
documents and classified them? No review process to assess what the consequences
to US national security would be? No regard for methods, sources, individual's
lives that could be put in jeopardy? No regard for what damage it could do to our
relationships with allies? No process for those that classified them to begin with
to say, this is a terrible idea and will cause grave harm? Just toss all that to the wind,
because Trump wants to take the DOD contingency plans for an attack on Iran with him,
rhat he has no need for, no right to? That's the position of the new Republican Cult?
Actually Trump showed what he wanted to use some of it for. He waved the classified
Iran document around for two authors, seeking to respond to a news story of not much
consequence about something Gen Miley said. Trump being a malignant narcissist,
took that as an awful attack on him, so he just had to attack back using anything
available which can be a childish insult or in this case divulging US DOD top secret documents.
Whatever it takes, it's all about Trump, Trump, Trump.

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:42:22 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
> On 6/12/23 19:15, Jim Joyce wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 18:44:08 -0700, T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/12/23 13:01, Slevin wrote:
> >>> micky wrote:
> >>>> It 's also not true that charges would be dropped if he drops out, and I
> >>>> suspect the distinguished Mr. Marks misunderstood what she said. It
> >>>> might have been a hypothetical, or maybe he fell asleep in his easy
> >>>> chair and dreamt it.
> >>>
> >>> Blah blah blah.
> >>> President Trump simply forgot to declassify the docs before he left
> >>> office on Jan 20, 2021. Sort of like forgetting to renew your license
> >>> plates. No big deal and certainly not criminal.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not to mention the standing declassification order when
> >> he took documents off site
> >
> > Since you were reportedly in the Air Force for a period of time, you are
> > probably well aware that there is no such thing as a "standing
> > declassification order", nor is such a thing even possible.
> >
> In your twisted imagination.
>
> Trump as commander in chief definitely had
> that authority.
>
> And yes, I was in the Air Force when President
> Pea Nut ran his mouth about our TOP SECRET
> satellite capabilities. We were told he
> could because he was the commander in chief
> but we could not.

This is just pathetic BS. There are obviously records of presidential orders and there is no
record of any such order. Two of Trump's chief of staffs are on the record saying no such
order existed. Kelly said it would have been foolish and he would have died in the ditches
fighting it. DOJ, as part of their indictment case, has witnesses who can testify that they
worked with Trump to declassify certain documents related to the Russia investigation that
Trump was hot on having declassified. They explained the process, how it's reviewed first,
decisions made, documents then marked, etc and they say Trump understood it.. There are
White House records of all that, the process being followed. We also
have Trump showing the DOD contingency plan for an attack on Iran to a couple of authors
and others at a meeting in Bedminster six months after leaving office. Trump tells them that
it's classified, that he could declassify while president, but he can't any longer and he should
not be showing it to them. A Trump aid said, "now we have a problem". What more could a
prosecutor want? Trump committing a crime, admitting he knows it's a crime on tape.

Besides that, how pathetically stupid do you have to be to believe that it would be OK
for a president to declassify documents based not on what they contain, with no
review process back to those that classified them to understand what the possible
consequences to lives, methods, national security would be, but simply because
those are the ones he wanted to take back to the WH residence?

And why is it Trump only put this BS forth when his titties were caught in the wringer?
When NARA started asking for classified documents back, why didn't Trump say they
were declassified? Why hasn't this claim been made by anyone under oath or in any
court filing? The answer is obvious.

Here is what his two chiefs of staff say about Trump "standing declassification order"
And note that 18 former Trump WH officials say they never heard of any such order either.

https://www.newsweek.com/two-trumps-chiefs-staff-reject-declassify-order-claim-foolish-1735202

However, John Kelly, who served as Trump's White House chief of staff from July 2017 to January 2019, and Mick Mulvaney, who held the role in an acting capacity from January 2019 to March 2020, told CNN for an article published Thursday, that there was no "standing order." Kelly went so far as to call the idea "foolish."

"Nothing approaching an order that foolish was ever given," Kelly said. "And I can't imagine anyone that worked at the White House after me that would have simply shrugged their shoulders and allowed that order to go forward without dying in the ditch trying to stop it."

Mulvaney told CNN that he was "not aware of a general standing order" while he served as the former president's top White House aide. The CNN report cited 18 former Trump administration officials, some of who were not named, who said they'd never heard of the directive.