I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
Right? How dare McCarthy do exactly what the democrats have been doing for years!! How dare he investigate possible political persecution in a department of justice. Or a political establishment?
Which years did democrats do that? Please point me to the congressional committee(s) led by democrats that investigated "possible political persecution" in the department of justice (or other federal institution). Which political establishment are you talking about?
This sounds like something that Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity would say to their gullible viewers. All belief with no actual evidence.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
It is also appropriate to identify fascist tendencies and ideology of those who are not "right wing".
We already have discussed how you think that no one can ever be a fascist if they do not fit into your "right wing" category. Which is false.
A stickler for exact interpretation of words when you engage in made up words "MAGAphile? Yes I've been reading back. I'd imagine you can not define a woman and think that someone who isn't white can be a white supremist too? Yet you will demonstrate a strick adherence to definitions when it suites you.
I'm wondering. Do you get your media information from CNN videos?
Here's the thing. Anyone can interpret any transcripts to benefit their ideology. However this doesn't matter in a law case. A law case that hasn't even started.
Nah... fascism is an example of right wing extremism. You can keep trying to change that reality but it just reflects poorly on your understanding of the term.
Funny that someone who has referenced TDS might think they should comment on a term like MAGAphile. I guess if conservatives can make up a mental health syndrome to try to insult Americans who can see Trump's corruption and lies, some liberals can make up a term to describe the Trump loving crowd.
Here's the thing, sworn testimony in a deposition IS evidence and depositions matter a great deal in a legal case. Yes, you can allow your personal bias to influence how you interpret those sworn depositions... or you can just read them and take them at face value. Yeah... the Dominion/Fox case has started, that's why legal filings have been made public and we can read portions of the depositions. That seems obvious unless you think that a legal case only starts when it gets to a courtroom.
Sure, sure... don't you wonder why Trump didn't investigate and jail Hillary Clinton for those crimes that Trump insisted would LOCK HER UP? It's almost like that was nothing more than right wing rhetoric that leans toward fascist authoritarian thinking... the notion that you'll jail your political opponent even though there's no actual crimes in evidence. Can you think of any modern examples of a right wing authoritarian jailing political opponents in the absence of actual crimes? The rhetoric is the same across the globe.
Meanwhile, "conservatives" seem very upset that an actual investigation may lead to actual indictments.
The President doesn't investigate anybody. Do you no know the role of the President? He also didn't have a wing man as attorney general. Surely you remember your ignorance on that topic. You really need to get some new sources for news. The echo chamber isn't working well for you.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
MaybeeRN said:
The President doesn't investigate anybody. Do you no know the role of the President? He also didn't have a wing man as attorney general. Surely you remember your ignorance on that topic. You really need to get some new sources for news. The echo chamber isn't working well for you.
LOL
Now you extrapolate someone else's ignorance about recent history...hahaha... that seems like a desperate attempt to deflect away from Bill Bar's actual corrupt behavior as Trump's wingman. Or maybe you believed that BS that Barr published in advance of the Mueller report. Or did you think that the Durham investigation was based upon actual evidence of wrong doing in spite of the investigation that said it wasn't? The Durham final findings certainly supported the reality that his investigation was, indeed, a witch hunt conducted to appease Trump and his supporters. That played well in the right wing echo chamber. I mean, you still mention made up claims about people like Clinton as if you were unaware that such claims are nothing more than right wing echo chamber propaganda. You don't believe all of that nonsense, do you?
If Trump supporters do protest, as the former guy is exhorting them to do, what will that look like? I am assuming there won't be tactical gear, or bear spray? I presume no mock gallows? Will there be a march? Speakers? Where will the protest(s) be? NYC? DC? Mar-A-Lago? Should I wear my pink hat?
Now you extrapolate someone else's ignorance about recent history...hahaha... that seems like a desperate attempt to deflect away from Bill Bar's actual corrupt behavior as Trump's wingman. Or maybe you believed that BS that Barr published in advance of the Mueller report. Or did you think that the Durham investigation was based upon actual evidence of wrong doing in spite of the investigation that said it wasn't? The Durham final findings certainly supported the reality that his investigation was, indeed, a witch hunt conducted to appease Trump and his supporters. That played well in the right wing echo chamber. I mean, you still mention made up claims about people like Clinton as if you were unaware that such claims are nothing more than right wing echo chamber propaganda. You don't believe all of that nonsense, do you?
Hahahaha
I forgot you have inside knowledge of the workings of the justice department. Your post is nothing more than deflection.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
MaybeeRN said:
I forgot you have inside knowledge of the workings of the justice department. Your post is nothing more than deflection.
As if you know anything about projection... it's just a writing style for you... there's no evidence in these threads that you understand the significance of repetitive projection as a strategy.
P.S. you would know these things about the Durham report if you ventured outside of that right wing echo chamber for information related to Trump and his sycophants. It's just part for the course that you are so poorly informed that you think that publicly reported information is insider stuff. How embarrassing for you, especially since articles discussing the details of the Durham debacle were offered up and discussed on this platform when it was current events. You could have read those and informed yourself but, instead, here we are. I guess ignorance is a choice, eh?
Your first remark suggests that you don't know how our American justice is supposed to work... you know, investigation and accumulation of evidence before chants of LOCK HER UP or indictments.
What makes these investigations frivolous? Aren't federal election finance laws important? They were for Michael Cohen. Isn't it important to investigate why the former president lied about his election loss and encouraged his inflamed mob to march on the Capitol to STOP THE STEAL? Were Trump's attempts to retain lost power through extra-constitutional means frivolous? Was Trump's phone call to Georgia officials frivolous, as he implored them to find enough votes to give him victory?
So far House Republicans are making statements about corruption of government institutions but they've provided no evidence to support their claims. That's the result of their current "investigations" into weaponization of government (their fixation on a laptop and Twitter) or border policy. Like Durham... they are going to spend tax payer dollars in a big way to try to find evidence that supports their claims and beliefs. Like Durham's investigation, these efforts will fail in embarrassing ways for congressional Republicans. Fortunately, the GOP players like Jim Jordan or MTG don't actually seem to experience shame or embarrassment so that won't be a deterrent for them.
What do you mean why can't Republicans do the same? Republicans claimed that Clinton should be locked up without even bothering to conduct a cursory investigation. They went right to LOCK HER UP. They said it and their cult members believed and repeated it even though there was no evidence ever presented of a crime behind their claims. Now Republicans are making claims about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, election security, border policy that they can't support with actual evidence or facts or data. So... yeah Republicans are experience and practiced at making wild claims and accusations in the absence of evidence. Maybe you forgot about Benghazi or maybe you don't see any similarity in the processes congressional Republicans use to weaponize government function then and now.
Yet you believe Trump is the most corrupt law breaking POTUS in history without a single charge. Then whine about mean chants about Hillary. Did he "lock her up"? Dud he try? No. Again your freedom of speech fascism is showing.
The amount and the extent of these investigations for years and no charges suggest they are frivolous. Or in the very least, have not provided enough evidence to charge him with anything. Where are the charges? Of incitement? Insurrection? American citizens are also protected from constant persecution from the law. Even Trump. Did you yourself not know this about the American justice system
How do you explain the fact that many different legal entities have determined that there was nothing substantial in regards to the stormy scandal? But now they do? I wonder why?.....
If you want to get all emotional about something he said that is protected under the first amendment "lock her up" then have at it. See if you can change the constitution. And that's just it. He said " lock her up". He did not use the justice system for constant investigations against Hillary. They investigated Bengazi. Found nothing.
They have just started investigations into possible corruptions of US government institutions. They have been investigating Trump for years. Do you bestow a time limit on investigations by Republicans but not democrats? Probably.
Perhaps there is corruption on many levels by different political motivations. That is a problem. There for it should be investigated. Or only when you feel Republicans do it?
Trust in our government institutions should not be a partisan topic.
Your first remark suggests that you don't know how our American justice is supposed to work... you know, investigation and accumulation of evidence before chants of LOCK HER UP or indictments.
What makes these investigations frivolous? Aren't federal election finance laws important? They were for Michael Cohen. Isn't it important to investigate why the former president lied about his election loss and encouraged his inflamed mob to march on the Capitol to STOP THE STEAL? Were Trump's attempts to retain lost power through extra-constitutional means frivolous? Was Trump's phone call to Georgia officials frivolous, as he implored them to find enough votes to give him victory?
So far House Republicans are making statements about corruption of government institutions but they've provided no evidence to support their claims. That's the result of their current "investigations" into weaponization of government (their fixation on a laptop and Twitter) or border policy. Like Durham... they are going to spend tax payer dollars in a big way to try to find evidence that supports their claims and beliefs. Like Durham's investigation, these efforts will fail in embarrassing ways for congressional Republicans. Fortunately, the GOP players like Jim Jordan or MTG don't actually seem to experience shame or embarrassment so that won't be a deterrent for them.
What do you mean why can't Republicans do the same? Republicans claimed that Clinton should be locked up without even bothering to conduct a cursory investigation. They went right to LOCK HER UP. They said it and their cult members believed and repeated it even though there was no evidence ever presented of a crime behind their claims. Now Republicans are making claims about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, election security, border policy that they can't support with actual evidence or facts or data. So... yeah Republicans are experience and practiced at making wild claims and accusations in the absence of evidence. Maybe you forgot about Benghazi or maybe you don't see any similarity in the processes congressional Republicans use to weaponize government function then and now.
Trump isn't being charged for federal election law violations by NY State. So your Cohen comparison is meaningless. Hilary sent classified emails through an unsecured server at her home in Chappaqua. She also destroyed hard drives and cell phones. Again you won't get that from the view or Don Lemon. James Comey even admitted she committed a crime. You seriously live in fantasy land with some of your posts. Next you'll tell us how you beat up a guy named Corn Pop.
Right. There were just persistent loud claims that Clinton was a criminal. Those republican claims have poisoned the minds of cult members to the point that they think that it's reasonable to bring Clinton's name up relative to political corruption. I mean, here you are talking about Clinton in respect to investigations and indictments even though you know of zero evidence that there was a crime that she should be investigated for. It's like so many conservatives live in a delusion where there's public evidence that Clinton tried to extort the Ukranian president or replaced her attorney general for insufficient fealty or encouraged her fans to fight like hell to STOP THE STEAL... but no evidence of that behavior from Trump.
What tactics that have never been used before are you talking about? Phone calls to secretaries of state asking for more votes... tactics like that? Or tactics like inviting an angry mob to STOP THE STEAL and refusing to admit defeat and participate in a peaceful transfer of power? Those are dangerous and unprecedented tactics, right?
Again. You are demonstrating a pathological issue with what people believe or say. You can not control that. People have the freedom to say and believe what they want. Under the constitution of the US. If you take issue with that then perhaps a communist country might better suit your feelings.
There is zero evidence. Which equaled to zero charges.
Countless investigations of Trump and no charges. You at some point have to acknowledge the same. No charges for Hillary, no charges for Trump. Why? No evidence, that's why.
This is what I am referring to about never done.
Quote
Were he charged, Trump would become the first former U.S. president to face criminal prosecution.
Quote
This is so unprecedented that it's hard for me to say," Agnifilo said when asked whether a judge would put Trump on trial close to the election. "I think it's tricky."
"What does revenge look like in a democracy? We know what it looks like in authoritarian regimes but what do conservatives think that revenge looks like in a democracy? "
Trump was charged, via 2 impeachments. He was not found guilty by the Senate, mainly along party lines. The senate voted to not even hear witnesses during the first impeachment trial.
No charges were brought after the Mueller investigation due to a DOJ policy of not charging sitting Presidents. Mueller, did however, produce 37 indictments, and secured 7 convictions/guilty pleas. He also declined to exonerate Trump. He did find multiple episodes where Trump sought to impede investigations.
toomuchbaloney
16,237 Posts
Which years did democrats do that? Please point me to the congressional committee(s) led by democrats that investigated "possible political persecution" in the department of justice (or other federal institution). Which political establishment are you talking about?
This sounds like something that Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity would say to their gullible viewers. All belief with no actual evidence.