Donald Trump may have "sold" classified binder to Russia, Mary Trump claims
Donald Trump may have "sold" classified binder to Russia, Mary Trump claims
A binder with classified documents about Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 election went missing nearly two years ago.
You're viewing a single thread.
” There is no evidence showing that Trump sold anything to Russia. Trump's critics have long accused him of working with Russia, but various investigations have not confirmed that.”
EDIT- ROFL @ all the downvotes by all the ignorant knuckleheads that think that their definition of justice overrides simple logic. She has no evidence to support this. It says so in the article. Which is what I quoted. It’s right fucking there. Yet everyone here has come to the conclusion that it MUST have happened. It couldn’t have NOT happened. Despite no evidence….
and those same people are crying about how Trump isn’t following the rules of the law?
Imagine if we persecuted him based on what she said. Yeah. Wet dream, right?
Just remember. To live in a worked where we persecute based on no evidence, you have to accept it both ways.
It's easy to not see the ocean at the beach when you bury your head in the sand.
As much as I'd like to see this shit stain go down, op is right. Where's the evidence? I've seen it speculated for a long while, and I dont doubt it for a second, but I do think this would have been jumped on long before we heard about it if it were irrefutable. To blindly.downvote this and and be a chicken shit the same way the right says "do your research" is not how you should aim to operate.
Thank you for this comment. You made me realize that I was being a dick earlier. In the interest of posterity, I left up the asshole shit I said earlier and made a new, actually civil response.
To add further to the discussion, one thing I didn't mention in my other response is that different standards of veracity are being applied here. This isn't a court of law, the article posted even qualifies the statements as being claimed by Mary Trump. Note the words "may have" and "Mary Trump claims" in the title.
So to go ahead and demand concrete evidence and spout "innocent until proven guilty" is just ridiculous.
You know what, I was too, so sorry homie. Got anything I can read up on regarding this? I think it's important that if we're gonna have trump in our face like this, at the very least if we give him publicity, it should be accompied by with aolid, easy to share reasons to get out and vote against him as well as help others do the same. Selling state secrets is in a whole other ballgame of denger compared to the other heinous shit this dude has normalized in our country imo.
Thank you, I appreciate you.
I used to have a site bookmarked that kept track of the terrible shit this guy did, but I no longer have that laptop. If I can find it again I'll message it to you. Regarding this current, specific situation, there's already an established pattern of his attitude regarding state secrets.
Likewise. I've seen that as well, regarding him keeping shit around, lying about it, volunteering info (sat imaging, nuclear sub details, etc.) it would not surprise me one bit if he's sold secrets to Russia or the Saudis.
Please do if you find some more deets
So…. Someone with zero proof to back up their claim is someone to be believed 100% without doubt?
Has no one explained to you how these things work?
I think the dude is a despicable piece of shit- but when we start holding people’s feet to the fire just because someone thinks they may have done something with no proof to back it up-
You may as well just elect him. Because you’re basically living in the world he wants anyway.
Personally, I’ll be holding out for concrete evidence instead of making a fool of myself online.
This is a more civil response, in the interest of genuine discussion. I was a drunk asshole that first time around and you didn't deserve that.
Ok, first and foremost, I admit that I don't have direct evidence of him doing that exact thing. I'll also admit that I'm not even going to bother looking for any, because it doesn't change my original point anyways, which is this:
It's foolish to assume there's zero evidence when there's such a clear cut pattern of behavior. There's Modus Operandi.
We're talking about someone who is infamously corrupt. He's been impeached twice. He's on the hook for almost 100 convictions. It's been established in court that he's committed tons of fraud. There's a plethora of record of him being disingenuous, deceitful, and carries an absolute disregard for the law.
It's so egregious that anyone questioning this pattern of behavior must be either amazingly ignorant of current events or simply arguing in bad faith. Which is something trolls actively do.
Now, I'm not a prosecutor trying to charge of him of this specific crime. I'm not even trying assert it's genuine validity. This is a post on a website. I don't need the same level of certainty as a jury would, since I'm not in actively making that case.
What I AM saying is that it's either ridiculously ignorant or maliciously disingenuous to apply the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in this discussion. There's a huge enough pattern of behavior to give this some plausibility.
Is that equivalent to concrete evidence of this specific crime? Again, no. But to sit there and argue innocence when there's such a clear pattern of behavior is insultingly disingenuous.
There you go, a fair response.
I wasn’t arguing innocence. I was simply saying the court of public opinion should remain silent until the opinions are justified.
But why the double standard? He's certainly not staying silent, even with all the gag orders.
That doesn’t make it right for others. And there is no double-standard. The point is- there is no proof. There’s enough to hang him on. Making shit up is only diluting the waters and giving them an argument of doubt.
That doesn’t make it right for others. And there is no double-standard.
Fair point, assuming that you're acknowledging that his accusations are also not right.
The point is- there is no proof.
Can you claim that with legitimate certainty though? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And that's still not accounting for the evidence of all the other similar terrible things he's done. Again, Modus Operandi.
Cause someone is a shit person, doesn’t mean they’re guilty of evening you can throw at them. There’s a reason for the concept of innocence until proven guilty. It’s what separates us from tyrants. And because they do it- isn’t sufficient reason for us to do it.
Best to wait it out and see how it unfolds.
That's a great point. Thanks for the civil discussion.
You stopped being worth listening to when you presupposed that there's zero proof. Goodbye.Edit: this was a douchy thing to say. I'm leaving it up for posterity.
So show proof or shut on up, chucklefuck.
So… where’s the proof? Go ahead. Point it out where there’s factual evidence of what she’s claiming.
I’ll wait right here.
Go ahead and wait. I owe you nothing. I have no incentive to indulge bad faith discussion. Cheers!Edit: this was a douchy thing to say. I'm leaving it up for posterity.
Exactly what I thought. Thanks for playing.
You know what, you have a valid point. I was also rude to you earlier and for that I apologize. So, in the interest of good faith discussion, I'll provide a proper reply to one of your comments. One moments, please.
Much respect to you man. Thank you.
It's true that there isn't evidence that he sold anything, but let's look at what we do know:
The whereabouts of the binder are currently unknown as it went missing during the last days of Trump's presidency, Reuters' source said.
The info in the binder:
The binder in question contained raw intelligence that the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies collected on Russia's alleged election interference in 2016, when Trump beat his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for the presidency, among other documents, according to Reuters who spoke with a source familiar with the matter.
Trump would be very high on that suspect list although, in my mind, the likely conclusion of him taking it is that those documents were destroyed rather than sold.
I would counter that, given the timeline and information, it's unlikely that anyone else would want to take those documents.