Perhaps even more concerning than nuclear secrets being exposed* is the possibility that intelligence sources were compromised. In fact, this seems extraordinarily likely, given that the CIA in October 2021 sent out a memo stating they'd been losing sources (via arrest, being compromised, or being killed) at a concerning rate. That's a rather major issue for national defense. Clearly something was the cause of that increased loss of assets, and TS/SCI documents are very likely to have included sources. Why would papers only meant to be stored or accessed within a specialized, secure facility be redacted?

The topics of the documents in question may not matter, in terms of how fucked FPOTUS might be. if Trump, for reasons of greed, malice, and/or gross negligence, caused the loss of sources useful to US security, that's legally a biiiig fucking deal.

And even being the cause of the murder of multiple intelligence assets may not really matter at all. Because, legally, being in possession of TS/SCI documents outside of a SCIF is a biiiig fucking deal all on its own. The jail term PER DOCUMENT runs multiple years.

Relevant legal mumbo-jumbo:
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; ...
(f) ...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

*Nuclear secrets being exposed also does seem plausible, but with so many countries having nukes and so many existing to be fucked with in some manner, I feel the much more exclusive knowledge of US intelligence asset identities is a larger problem, legally and probably morally. He probably directly caused multiple murders, and a general degradation of the US's intelligence capabilities. Not something one wants in a commander in chief.

Gonna help you get through this...

Bongo isn't worth the spit. Sharing nothing as he has no grasp of history. I do...but am fairly well-read...and am open to learning the good/bad/ugly of American history. Check out the '60s and the LBJ administration. Find a book by a real historian. Answers should come by seeing it for yourself. Or, magically, given the chance to think about it objectively.

will admit was against Uncle Thomas from the beginning. anyone w/sense knew a black man was going to be appointed but who he was replacing was almost too much to bear (like the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark - a jewel for a bag of dirt). never appeared to me to be overqualified or a cognitive powerhouse. believed he'd be what he is. seat filler.

so was biased in that regard. knew how to judge the judge.

in a wider view - we are all biased in some regard. hard not to be. science has shown even our brains give us bad info. racism exists everywhere - no one group is immune. 'tho some use it as a tool to get other tools to act like fools (ex: Jan 6). i.e. don't use bias to prove bias. like trying to wash in dirty water.

Can't help w/the other vids 'cause they smell of BS. Open-minded doesn't mean Open Holed. Don't have to be an outhouse. Don't want to step in it - why roll in it?

Not if you excuse the invasion and takeover because they were DUE reparations, or even because they were fleeing the Nazis. I think reparations were due….by Germany, not Palestine.
Palestine paid them…and continues to pay them today.
It’s not feasible today, but it was directly after WW2, and that’s what we should have supported, even enforced.

Do you deny a massive influx of Jewish illegal immigrants invited by those who had been generously granted asylum? Do you deny they had the intent to take the land by force for a Jewish state? Do you deny most came after the war ended so weren’t fleeing war or Nazis? If not, where’s the disagreement? If so, citations please.

If they came illegally, absolutely, I object. If they came secretly intending to take the land of their benefactors by force, absolutely, I object. It was mostly in the later 40’s btw, largely AFTER the war ended. They weren’t fleeing Nazi persecution then.
Yes, when you come against the wishes of the local government intending to depose it, install your own, and expel the natives, that’s called invasion. That’s their history.

If I invite a refugee to live in my yard, and they invite their family, neighbors, and groups of armed militants who steal my house, land, and property and put me on skid roe, and the police turn a blind eye, even supporting the squatters because they’ve had it hard lately, do you think I have a right to get my friends to try to remove them, even if I wasn’t prepared to fight to the death unarmed and alone against their mob? If I do, do you still call me the aggressor? Come on. Don’t ignore the primary original crime that precipitated 70 years of atrocities.

Israel declared war by becoming a state by stealing one. I find it bullshit to blame the Palestinians neighbors for supporting their neighbor against a massive invasion and land grab by foreigners. Again, like Mexicans taking Texas back and you complaining if we tried to keep it, especially if we asked our Allie’s for help. Utter nonsense.

The Jewish people had already invaded and expelled the natives, removing all rights from any remaining. The two state solution = just go ahead and keep Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah because there’s already illegal immigrants there, in a few years you can have Kansas and Nevada, then keep expanding….those people are currently in Texas at this time. Again, you ignore the invasion, land theft, and expulsion to pretend Israel was already there…nonsense again.

Yes, it took more force to keep it from the armies of the allies of Palestine than it did to steal it from the recently liberated colony of Palestine that had no military. Duh.

What I see differently is I don’t ignore or forget the violent forced invasion by the Jewish zionists, nor the expulsion, theft from, and dehumanization of the natives, I don’t blame the natives for attempting to regain their ancestral home or properties that the Jewish state outright stole, nor do I ignore the horrific conditions those same people and their descendants have lived under for 70 years, constantly invaded further, no travel allowed, no imports, no water, no medicine, no weapons but treated like the aggressors and the criminal invaders for attempting to fight for THEIR OWN LAND, kept in shrinking ghettos, treated as sub humans to be exterminated, exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews but on a national level.

@newtboy
"I meant in a practical and ethical sense it would have made more sense for them to take part of Germany as actual reparations."
Isn't this a red herring, irrelevant point though unless they were given part of Palestine as 'reparations'? If we're gonna fix history with wishes lets go further and erase WW2.

"When they, as a people, invade a recently sovereign land and take it by force..."
It's your characterization here that you seem to just be asserting as true, but it's the heart of where we see it differently.

Are you objecting to the Jewish refugees illegally taking refuge alongside Jewish people already in Palestine in the 30s and early 40s? Your usage of the word 'invade' seems to suggest that.

Do you think I'm misrepresenting things as well when I pointed out it was the Arab states that declared war, immediately upon Israel embracing a two state solution? And let's be clear, it was a two state solution with borders essentially mirroring the existing land occupied by both Jewish and Arab peoples currently in Palestine at the time.

You declare it was taken by force, but the history as I know it has by far the largest use of force was 100% defensive after the declaration of war by all neighboring Arab states.

What are you seeing so differently at that point of history?

CGI = Computer Generated Image….this includes computer altered and purely computer generated images, and includes still and moving images. Perhaps it’s not an industry term anymore, it’s still an English term/phrase I used properly according to every reference I can find.

I’ve offered multiple citations backing that up.

Can you offer any backing up your contention that there’s really no such thing as cgi? Since CG only counts for 3d computer generated objects, what do YOU call computer altered images like aged actors and lighting effects (Blade Runner) on photos/film etc? Can you offer a citation to back you up? The dictionary calls that CGI.

It may be silly to call it that, but not as silly as this argument.
Remember, the CGI tag was there to indicate this was not some attempt to fool people into believing it was real, as you originally accused. So was FX. They both served their purpose, although they had to be pointed out.
Remember, you also wanted to quibble over whether this was “art” as if your liking it or it taking a substantial amount of work to create was the measure.
Now you want to quibble over a lay term that was ONLY intended as an obvious clue that this was altered.

Why?

I’ve explained multiple times why I posted it. If you still don’t know why, you have a comprehension problem, because I was quite clear. I thought it was pretty.

I think you just wanted to gripe.

BTW, bro didn’t take the job at Lucas, and regretted it immediately. He was running a few egghead stores at the time and thought his future was in computer sales. He still works with computers, has been building them since the 70’s (Apple 2) and runs his own server farm and is his own ISP. He stopped making computer art a while ago.

Well put. But what's the % of Western (or the whole World in general except the Middle Eastern region) population who can make the distinction? It's really depressing.

Here in Canada, IMO the political landscape is very much the same as in the US. It is firmly drilled into people's mind that anyone criticizing the government of Israel's constant harrasement, military action, and land grabs in Palestinian territories are automatically branded as Anti-semitism by the likes of the JDOs (Jewish Defense Organizations). There are many legit Anti-Semitism incidents in Canada that need to be condemned, true, but there are also real over-reaction and subpression of objective opinions by the JDOs. These "false branding" hurts people's lives. And we almost NEVER hear the word Zionist (or anti-Zionist) in the media, mostly isolated to academic circles only.

Nobody would be offended hearing someone criticize any country's policy and military incursion (say, you don't like Trump/Biden? No one will say you're anti-American), but any negative comment involving Israel? Damn it boy, you're begging for trouble. As if Isreal, Likud, Netanyahu and the Jewish people are one and the same. Criticize one, you criticize all. But why is that? What makes Isreal, above all other countries, well above any reproach?

Now, I'm not pro- or anti-Semite nor pro- or anti-Zionist. Such generalised sentiment is wrong to me. I'm just pro-peace, the history of that land is way too complex and the blood spilled between its peoples ran for generations and gone on for centuries. It's unrealistic for any leaders to settle anything between their peoples in a political term or two (and not even factoring outside influences that DON'T want them to settle). There are too many hate and zero trust between the peoples right now. Just let peace reigns for a decade then it'll be time to talk settlement of statehood. Give Isrealites & Palestinians some peaoce & prosperity first. Everyone, including the media, politicians inside and outside of that land, the UN, etc. just need to recognize that and not be just so lopsided in their support.

I see a lot of objections for intimidating the witnesses in her future.

I have to agree, the visual representation seemed…off.

I was more interested in what the child indicated with the mixing board, that sounds (and sights I assume) are not filtered to highlight your focus, in fact sometimes the object of focus is somewhat filtered while ambient noises aren’t.

I often think of myself as partially deaf because I can’t seem to focus on voices no matter how much I try, but I often hear tiny noises others can’t until I point them out. I don’t think it’s an ear problem.

Don’t you ever get tired getting called out on your blatant, stupid lies?

You must be a masochist, or hate yourself. You make yourself look like a bigoted ignorant sexist moron every day spewing lies and nonsense from your cock holster.

Every single day you post, you post lies and false propaganda….then get proven a liar and gullible ignoramus. Why do you like that so much? It’s clearly intentional. Do you get paid for each response to your trolling? It’s the only thing that makes sense.

Edit-
BTW, how are you enjoying MTG floundering, twisting, and getting caught outright lying on the stand?
Lawyer : Do you remember saying Nancy is a traitor?
Greene: I’m not answering that, no, it’s speculation. I didn’t say that.
Lawyer: Pull up exhibit 5 please…
Greene: Hold on now, wait…

She lost her case right there….continuing….

Lawyer: directing you to page 4, the paragraph that starts out “she’s a traitor to our country.
MTG lawyer: I object, what possible relevance could it be that she had political disagreements that result in hyperbole that is commonly used…(it’s precisely what the case is about)
Judge: overruled
Lawyer: ms Green, did you say “she’s a traitor to our country, she’s guilty of treason, she took an oath to protect American citizens, she gives aid and comfort to our enemies who would illegally invade our land. That’s what treason is, and our law representatives and senators can be kicked out and no longer serve in our government (irony!), and it’s a crime punishable by death is what Treason is. Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason.” Did you say those words?
Green: I said, I, this is what I was telling you. She doesn’t uphold our laws….
Lawyer: it’s a simple yes or no question, did you say those words?
Green lawyer: objection, harumph harumph harumph.
Judge: did you say those words that are quoted on the bottom of that? Did you say that?
Green: According to this cnn article I did, I don’t remember.
Judge: do you recall saying it?
Green: I don’t recall saying all of this, but I do recall having said this about…I totally disagree with the border issues.

She is so toast not even powdered toast man could save her.

I would like to point out that she directly said Pelosi is a traitor and should be punished with death, and thinks that’s perfectly acceptable, but she made multiple police reports and tried to get Kimmel arrested for saying “where’s Will Smith when we need him”, implying she needs a good slap….that she thinks deserves prison time.
Such infantile snowflakes Trump made out of Republicans. Whining little bitches, one and all.

Pedophile Bohbert is next (she helped her husband intentionally expose his penis to 2 YOUNG girls in public, supporting him through his conviction and sentences.). Then cocaine orgy Cawthorn. Party of debauchery….HA!

*backup=[...snipped...]

If you fight a war you have to use everything you have. The only limiting factor is own survival and post war public opinion, decided largely by who wins. There is nothing moral or legal about wars, every bet is all-in.

You only want to wage wars with clear objectives that at least your own population understands and that you know you will win, and be able to justify after the war is over.

Putin got something wrong. Or everything.

I don't understand the point that's being made here. She's objecting to him describing it as the "latest" invasion rather than the more generic "an invasion"?

Bob, can you explain what we're supposed to find upsetting about this? It seems like incredibly nitpicky fluff, but perhaps there's some subtlety I'm missing that would have a real impact in some way...?

Russia clearly has invaded Ukraine at this point. And that's bad, I hope you'd agree, as Ukraine is a sovereign democracy and has done nothing to warrant a hostile invasion of this sort. The Biden admin has correctly recognized it as a hostile and unwarranted invasion, and appears to be responding in a manner which is reasonable for the situation, given our relationship with Ukraine.

Where's the beef?

Can only guess what BK33's video is about. Seeing "T*****'s lawer" and the "Q" in the corner, is like being offered a cold sore lipped kiss.

I'll pass.

If it was something about '16 vs '20 - it's a poor point. No one died. People were unhappy but compliant. No one lied that the votes were tainted. '16 was far more sane and civil.

AND LOOK WHO WAS INSTALLED IN 2016!

It was like a Prom fiasco where the frogs from the biology lab won both King and Queen. Just made a mockery of the Prom's First Dance.

All the more reason the objection(s) to the 2020 election was a travesty. 2016 installed one of the worst ever!

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall

[Even ranked below a man that really never served. Man on his deathbed was considered a better President.]

Too bad that little insurrection interrupted them from making that case then, isn’t it?
That was the plan, object, have Pence accept and agree with their baseless already litigated and found legally invalid objections to legally certified electors, then have him accept the fraudulent slates of “electors” with their forged fraudulent documents provided by the RNC without allowing for any new objection, and declare Trump president despite his losing the vote and electoral college by a historic landslide….that’s called stealing the office, and is about as anti democratic as government gets. Even Pence sees that clearly, and he’s as sycophantic as they come.
After the failed coup, that evening the sycophants in their gibbering terror dropped their ploy and objections and let Pence move on.
Must be nice to have no memory, it allows such easy rewrites of history and your positions.

Fortunately, one violent Republican subversion of democracy got in the way of another attempted Republican subversion of democracy by fraud, and put Pence in the position of going along with the president’s mob trying to hang him, or follow the law, and the facts, and not join the coup (because it was clear if he did, he would still be hanged come Jan 21st. His actions and words that day make it clear he was certain the president himself was trying to kill him by any means….that’s why he refused to leave congress with the president’s personal secret service team. He feared assasination by Trump.).

Sorry, these quasi legal manuverings have been litigated, you lost. “Can” and “could” being operative words there….the issue being the validity of the challenges. The rights interpretation of the law and their ability to circumvent it has been rejected universally by the courts, because it is blatantly disingenuous and ridiculous, ignoring precedent and historical interpretation in favor of technical loopholes that might be valid if you just ignore the rest of the law and the requirement for honesty in court….like the ploy you describe above.

Pence cannot overturn the election . He just oversees the House according to the Electoral Count Act. If there are objections it also needs a Senate member joining in. Then a challenge can occur and the electoral vote could be changed.

In 2016 there were Democrat house members objections but had no senators support.




In 2020 House members and Senate members had objected. Pence at that point would be obligated to follow the rules set in the Electoral Count Act and allowed the debate, which he did not do.
https://www.vox.com/2021/1/6/22218058/republicans-objections-election-results

"six Republicans in the Senate and 121 in the House backed objections to certifying Arizona’s electoral outcome, while seven Senate Republicans and 138 House Republicans supported an objection to certifying Pennsylvania’s electoral outcome."