Rudy Giuliani said something interesting on Louder With Crowder:
Apparently, the FBI had already gone into the home to inspect how secure the materials were. It was in this initial inspection months ago that they weren't entirely convinced of the security measures taken to keep these documents secure, even though they were in a locked safe... so they literally padlocked the room so that no one could get into the room. Instead of asking for the documents like normal humans, they raided the house, broke their own padlock to the locked room, then broke open the safe, and took the documents.
If this information was so sensitive, why didn't they just a) ask for the documents, b) take the documents initially instead of barricading part of Trump's house?
In the latest example of state-as-a-religion, the LA Times is so sure of the FBI's virtue that the possibility of misconduct doesn't even cross their minds, at least for public comment purposes.
I'm sure Sarah D. Wire will soon be enjoying a job with the DNC or the White House.
They're not technically wrong, though we all know the author & Times' bad-faith intent.
Considering its unprecedented and flagrant nature, you'd have to think they expected/knew they would find something to really fuck him over and imprison him. Implanting extremely convenient CP evidence won't fly with such a high-profile figure.
If they don't, well, they've pissed off a lot of voters and the gambit has the reverse effect: even a number of disinterested or disillusioned ex-Trumpers will be inclined to jump back on the wagon. Whole thing is bizarre.
Hilarious back-rationalization.
"The fact that the FBI arrested Richard Jewel without evidence of him committing a crime proves how large the evidence against Mr. Jewel was!"
But remember, profiling bad when done to those statistically more likely to have committed a crime.
#BurnLootMurder, #BuyLargeMansions, #BidenLovesMinors
Rudy Giuliani said something interesting on Louder With Crowder:
Apparently, the FBI had already gone into the home to inspect how secure the materials were. It was in this initial inspection months ago that they weren't entirely convinced of the security measures taken to keep these documents secure, even though they were in a locked safe... so they literally padlocked the room so that no one could get into the room. Instead of asking for the documents like normal humans, they raided the house, broke their own padlock to the locked room, then broke open the safe, and took the documents.
If this information was so sensitive, why didn't they just a) ask for the documents, b) take the documents initially instead of barricading part of Trump's house?
The media are a cancer and the world is in dire need of chemo.
In the latest example of state-as-a-religion, the LA Times is so sure of the FBI's virtue that the possibility of misconduct doesn't even cross their minds, at least for public comment purposes.
I'm sure Sarah D. Wire will soon be enjoying a job with the DNC or the White House.
Look up who owns the LA Times
They're not technically wrong, though we all know the author & Times' bad-faith intent.
Considering its unprecedented and flagrant nature, you'd have to think they expected/knew they would find something to really fuck him over and imprison him. Implanting extremely convenient CP evidence won't fly with such a high-profile figure.
If they don't, well, they've pissed off a lot of voters and the gambit has the reverse effect: even a number of disinterested or disillusioned ex-Trumpers will be inclined to jump back on the wagon. Whole thing is bizarre.