National Poll Shows Nothing More Than The People Likely To Be Angered By The FBI’s Raid On Trump’s Home Were Angered By It
from the BREAKING:-TRUMP-FANS-LIKE-FBI-EVEN-LESS dept
Let’s get this out of the way immediately: the FBI is not a trustworthy agency. It has a long history of civil rights abuses, national security power abuses, and has spent more than four years refusing to be honest about the effect device encryption has on investigations.
But to pretend the recent raid on Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home caused an across-the-board drop in trust in the agency is to willingly ignore the data. That’s what Casey Harper appears to be doing in his article for The Center Square, which is entitled “Poll: Mar-A-Lago raid has eroded trust in the agency.”
Now, it may be that Harper doesn’t write his own headlines. But he did write this:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation raid on former President Donald Trump has eroded Americans’ trust in the agency, according to a new poll.
Rasmussen Reports released the data, which showed that 44% of surveyed Americans say the raid made them trust the federal law enforcement agency less.
This is partially Rasmussen’s fault. Its own post on its poll has this ridiculous headline:
‘Biden’s Gestapo’? Trump Raid Hurts Voter Trust in FBI
And says this in the body of the post:
A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports finds that 44% of Likely U.S. voters say the FBI raid on Trump’s Florida home made them trust the FBI less, compared to 29% who say it made them trust the bureau more. Twenty-three percent (23%) say the Trump raid did not make much difference in their trust of the FBI.
But it really did nothing of the sort. The poll data actually show nothing more than the amplification of echoes in chambers built specifically for the purpose of amplifying echoes.
The data say completely unsurprising things, like the fact that people prone to be pissed off about the FBI’s raid of Trump’s home are now angry at the FBI. The largest percentage of poll respondents who have a very unfavorable impression of the FBI following the raid are white, male Republicans above the age of 40 — more than double any other demographic.
And that trend holds, again unsurprisingly, when Rasmussen asked specifically about the Mar-a-Lago raid:
Non-unexpectedly, the same sort of responses were given to Rasmussen’s much more loaded question: “There is a group of ‘politicized thugs at the top of the FBI who are using the FBI… as Joe Biden’s personal Gestapo.”
One would think a national pollster might avoid directly quoting long-time political operative/Trump pardon recipient Roger Stone while conducting a poll, but here we are. Rasmussen does not note how many times poll respondents uttered the phrase “Let’s go, Brandon!” during these interactions.
This poll doesn’t show anything anyone could have assumed following the search of Trump’s house. Democrats trust the FBI just a bit more than they already did. Republicans got even angrier at an agency they really haven’t cared for since then-FBI Director James Comey rebuffed Trump’s demands for total fealty. And Comey was the one who won over Trump fans — at least momentarily — by publicly reopening the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server just days before the 2016 election.
But those whose love and hate of the FBI are closely tied to their political allegiances are dupes falling victim to short cons. The long con is the agency itself, which may not be the amoral entity it was under J. Edgar Hoover, but still has a long way to go before anyone should consider it inherently trustworthy.
Filed Under: donald trump, fbi, polls, trustworthy
Companies: rasmussen
Comments on “National Poll Shows Nothing More Than The People Likely To Be Angered By The FBI’s Raid On Trump’s Home Were Angered By It”
push poll:
noun
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
what classified materiels?
Surely a sitting president is authorized to see, and also to declassify, for any reason, any document that exists. If he moved out of the White House and became a former president, no document that he packed and moved was above the of his office.
Re:
There are declassification procedures and packing sensitive papers into boxes and taking them to Florida probably does not automatically declassify them. And documents relating to nuclear weapons have a special classification that even a sitting president cannot remove on their own initiative. I expect Trump to make exactly your argument, but it is a novel theory and very, very far from a legal certainty.
Re: Re:
recent political cartoon
trump wearing a fairy costume with wand, being winched (ala peter pan) taping each box of secrets to declassify them.
Re:
When you leaves a job, there are lots of documents that you had access that you should leave behind, and very few that you are slowed to take with you. A US president, on leaving office can nominate documents for a presidential library, but note that library is managed by the government.
Re:
“Surely a sitting president is authorized to see, and also to declassify, for any reason, any document that exists”
Sitting, sure, within the rules applicable for such classifications. Which, apparently, Trump did not follow.
“If he moved out of the White House and became a former president, no document that he packed and moved was above the of his office”
That’s… not what we’ve been hearing. Let’s see what comes of this, but despite the nearly 30 different excuses so far offered by the orange one and his cohorts, the president having boxes of documents in his house is not necessarily allowed, and the claims that he could just declassify whatever he wanted without notifying people seems to be a fantasy.
Re: Re:
No, no, you misread it. “Surely a shitting president is authorized to see, and also to declassify, for any reason, any document that exists,” is what it actually says. 😉
Re: President can't declassify all documents
There are some classes of documents that the President does not have the right to declassify. Some of this type of document were at Mar-a-lago.
These documents can only be classified by agreement between the Departments of Energy and Defense. Not by the President and certainly not without any kind of paper trail.
Re: Re: President can't see all documents
There are some classes of documents that the President does not have the right to declassify. Some of this type of document were at Mar-a-lago.
It’s slightly worse; a sitting president doesn’t even have the right to see any classified document they wish to. Caveats often apply, such as “eyes only”, and if your name/position/circumstance doesn’t fall within scope…
TBH this is all a bit moot; you know what they say about possession…
Re: Re: Re:
And if I was found to be in possession of stolen property, I would still be prosecuted for it even if I’d come into that possession honestly (sold stolen item by the thief, for example).
Re:
First, the moment he was no longer President, he had no authority whatsoever on the classification level of any documents. He lost that power the moment Biden was inaugurated.
Second, there are certain procedures to be followed. Either paperwork needs to be filled—among other formalities—or, possibly, there needs to be an official announcement stating as much at an absolute minimum. Basically, at the very least, there has to be some sort of record that the papers were actually and officially declassified. There is no indication that this happened at all.
Third, the classification level of the documents is ultimately besides the point. The relevant portion of the Espionage Act covers documents important to or concerning national security. Whether or not the documents are classified and—if so—to what degree are they classified is irrelevant to this particular law; only their importance to national security (as well as the fact that they are public records).
Re:
If I were the POTUS (yes, I know it’s never gong to happen), I could talk about declassifying documents all I want, but they’re going to remain classified unless I follow the correct procedure for declassification, which Trump apparently didn’t.
Re: Re:
Ah, but Trump secretly changed the way documents are declassified using executive privilege. Burn the witch Hunter!
Re: Re: Re:
But, even if he declassified the documents, I don’t think even a sitting president is allowed to change ownership of them. Government documents belong to the people, not any president.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes, but the specific charges aren’t that Trump had 700 pages of publicly owned material, they’re that he had 700 pages of classified material that he claimed to have declassified when he did no such thing. Do pay attention, 007! 😎
Re: No.
Wrong on the facts; wrong on the law.
Parler is not a research source.
Re: Re:
Parler is not a research source.
Doesn’t that depend on who’s doing the research?
Re: Re: Re:
TBF those studying Nazi’s were dealing with a marge portion of that group dying off in Argentina.
Re: Re: Re:2
TBF, I think Autie was talking about those right wing mouthpiece “news” channels and other producers of push polls.
Re:
” was above the of his office.’
Do…do you smell toast burning?
Re: Re:
Non sequitur.
Re: Re: Re:
I think we all agree that it’s nice you get so much use out of your word-a-day calendar. Do be mindful to change the page once in a while though.
Re: Re: Re:2
Advice best given to someone that not only can’t count higher than one, but also clearly doesn’t know what the phrase “non sequitur” means. You, then.
The flinging....the flinging...
Trumpanzes get angry. They squat and reach around. Beware what happens next.
Re:
Better than the buckets of water flung by the Trumpalos. At least you can dodge handfuls of faeces flung in your direction.
Re:
These are Trumpanzes, they couldn’t find their ass with both hands and a map unless someone tells them its not a fake map drawn on the ballot that would have made Trump God King for life.
Re: Re:
Well, if Trumpanzees are anything like chimpanzees, they’ll tear your balls out.
Re: Re: Re:
…er…
Well, it does reduce competition?
What does the FBI even have to do with this?
A prosecutor got the DOJ and a judge to sign off on a warrant application. The FBI did nothing here but execute the warrant. Did they bungle the search? Apparently not, and with such a high-profile target they probably would have taken extra care to avoid that.
So I don’t get how the talk and surveys about the FBI and trust in it and what kind of organisation it is make much sense unless you want to stipulate that they didn’t do what they were required to, or that they fabricated evidence or whatever.
But reflexive conspiratists like Rand Paul aside, nobody suggested any such thing.
You could try the “only in a banana republic, the DOJ can be instrumentalized against the current administration’s opponents” but frankly, comparing Bill Barr’s antics with Merrick Garland makes this look not merely hypocritical but plain stupid. Not that plain stupid is an unpopular look for some politicians.
Re:
I think you have the order of events incorrect. The FBI conducts investigations and then turns over the results of that investigation to the DOJ who decides rather or not to prosecute. I believe it was the FBI who requested the warrrant, though they did discuss it with the DOJ first because this was clearly going to be a a sensitive issue.
Regardless the legal procedures for executing the warrant were followed to the letter.
What a surprise, if you heavily skew the framing of the question you skew the results, who ever could have seen that coming?
Lets run a telephone poll asking people who answer the phone if they also are awaiting millions of dollars from an African nation just as soon as they pay transport fees…
blinks
Oooh online polls, because there is ‘NO WAY’ echo chambers online would get wind of it and direct the faithful to make sure they tell the world how horrible the FBI is…
blinks
Despite the faux outrage coming from team Trumpikins, this wasn’t a Biden ordered hit job.
They have an investigation they were directed to undertake based on NARA asking the DOJ to get the documents back, noting that they had gotten the most secret of our secrets back in other batches that were in a resort not a SKIF.
A Judge looked at the evidence and signed off on a warrant, not because he was pressured or corrupt, but because under the law the request was valid.
Unlike other raids in the history of the FBI, they didn’t roll in with armored vehicles & full cosplay uniforms. They were stupid enough to believe that offering a modicum of discretion would avoid trigger a massive shitshow.
They collected even MORE classified information, after signed statements claiming they had no more, from a room… with a padlock. (Much secure, very safe, wow)
Now we have assholes on both sides of the aisles, who allegedly are lawyers, demanding that the details behind an ongoing investigation be turned over to them or the public. (Just because people have attacked the FBI & stalked agents AND THEIR CHILDREN, is no reason to think that releasing any more information could lead to more Trump faithful thinking its 1776 and they are saving the nation.)
But sure a poll is gonna tell us what really is happening, I mean we can use poll responses to if there is a demonic cabal controlling the nation and eating children to prove it must be true.
Re:
Lets run a telephone poll asking people who answer the phone if they also are awaiting millions of dollars from an African nation just as soon as they pay transport fees…
I’m not, but I’ve deleted an absolute shit ton of emails promising just that. If it sounds too good to be true, then it more than likely is.
Re: Re:
And yet there are a handful of people who insist their ship will come in just as soon as they send the last 250,000 in fees.
Consider it was more of an indictment of the sort of people who answer unknown callers & then are willing to take a random survery.
Re: Re: Re:
I realised that, but thought I’d say something anyway for those commenters not as sophisticated.
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, random surveys? Where? I love doing random surveys and filling them with bullshit like made up account numbers that can’t possibly exist.
Re: Re: Re:2
Animaniacs did it…
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2t4c66
Re:
Unlike other raids in the history of the FBI, they didn’t roll in with armored vehicles & full cosplay uniforms. They were stupid enough to believe that offering a modicum of discretion would avoid trigger[ing] a massive shitshow.
Repeated for Lostcause, who seriously needs to rwad this information.
To use that old Slashdotism – nothing to see here, move along.
On the FBI: Sometimes, many places, they’ve actually been the Feral Instigatory Bureau, or FIB. This time they’re almost demure.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
As I said
Remember a few days after the raid, I said this was going to add major file to the trump voter base?
Well, so many ignores the comment and picked on my use of the word martyr?
Here’s a poll BEFOR the story of Biden’s direct knowledge showing an uptick.
Add to that today’s story that Biden not only knew, contrary to what he said, about the raid plans in April, but personally agreed to o the waiving of claimed executive privilege by Trump…
It’s almost like the Dems are trying to hand trump a 24 win.
Upholding the law, is good. No matter who it is. And trump has a group of brain-washed followers who will vote for him even if he’s not on the ballot.
But the White House needs to stop lying and hiding truths or it’s literally going to turn swing voters against the D party. Even for Trump.
If they don’t start paying attention to the how of their actions were going to wind up with a solid red block come early 25. How is that good for anyone.
Re:
Here’s a poll BEFOR the story of Biden’s direct knowledge showing an uptick.
Links.
Add to that today’s story that Biden not only knew, contrary to what he said, about the raid plans in April, but personally agreed to o the waiving of claimed executive privilege by Trump…
[Citation needed]
Re: Re:
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/biden-white-house-facilitated-dojs-criminal-probe-against-trump
I have no idea the overall truth and chain of events, but could be damning.
Again, this whole display-of-power show is going to play right into the hands of the far right fucks. And give them something to show that they’re right on something.
Re: Re: Re:
That website was founded by a former contributor to Fox News and is about as trustworthy. Got a source that isn’t infamous for fake news, Republican?
Re:
I mean, any action taken that can be seen to be against Trump would have added fire to the Trump voter base. What did you expect was going to happen? Were you hoping to be recognized for straining your faculties, coming to that obvious conclusion?
You’d think someone who claims to not actually care for what other people think of them wouldn’t be this bothered that people ignored their comment… and yet, here we are. It’s almost as if you put a lot more stock in what people think of you than you’re willing to admit.
Re: Re:
It more ‘told you so’ than anything.
Grabbing a few boxes was way-over-done scale wise. And it was bound to backfire with voters.
Re: Re: Re:
Grabbing a few boxes was way-over-done scale wise.
According to the Vanity Fair article AC linked to:
The search of Mar-a-Lago began at 9 a.m. on August 8. The Secret Service was reportedly notified right beforehand and “facilitated access to the Florida Trump property as fellow federal agents but did not take part in investigation or search,” per NBC News’ Kelly O’Donnell. The Feds, who were in plainclothes, reportedly left around 6:30 p.m. Mar-a-Lago is currently closed to members on account of the summer heat in Florida. The White House said it first learned of the search from reports.
Hardly meets the description of “way overdone scale-wise,” does it? But do you know who has claimed the FBI went in with tanks and automatic rifles despite not being there to see the search? Now will you please stop listening to the lies of your godking?
Re: Re: Re:2
I haven’t heard tanks. Lol. But I have seen the footage from both local NBC and local Fox of all the cars.
I never commented on trump being there or not. Other than I said it was excessive ‘despite home not being there’.
Given secret service protection, I figured trump knew beforehand. Even if he claims he didn’t.
Re: Re: Re:3
Given secret service protection, I figured trump knew beforehand.
Of course he did. How else could he have had the opportunity to be there?
Even if he claims he didn’t.
Your godking’s never claimed that.
Re: Re: Re:4
I don’t say Lord Lucifer, god of the rebellion, king of the earth, master and deliverer of knowledge and wisdom, said anything about trump.
I did imply Trump saying something about not knowing would be typical of his actions though.
Re: Re: Re:5
You should probably do some warm ups before you start trying to run all over defending ya boi. Otherwise you could pull a muscle.
Re: Re: Re:6
I think he already has. He went from saying “Biden knew about the search” to saying “Trump knew about the search” pretty fucking quickly, and he’s yet to spot the disconnect.
Re: Re: Re:7
They’re separate situations.
I came across a story saying Biden agreed to waving off presidential privilege. It comes up from multiple sources in looking further. I believe it was emailed to me. I don’t recall. But it definitely has traction.
I assumed, based on his track record, Trump would make some claim about not being there as a rallying call. But with SS protection he’d have had to be aware of it ahead of time.
Re: Re: Re:8
Unless you can point to a reliable online source saying Biden knew about the search before Trump announced, your clsim holds no water. I don’t care who emailed you what because I’ve had plenty emailed to me, and all of it proved to be untrue when I consulted fact checking websites.
Re: Re: Re:9
Failure of failed pull-out AC, oh my!
I posted the link. If you don’t like the source that’s up to you to decide on.
Considering how many believe WaPo and V are “reliable” (fm I’ll die laughing). And how so many other thing OAN and National …
One person’s reliable is another’s tabloid.
Personally I don’t care about the political attack, (my belief) on a former president, nor the fact that the former president is likely on the wrong side of the law as it currently sits.
My interest is in how this moves forward and hopefully creates some setting on what levels of executive power actually exist in, and outside, the law.
Court submissions and transcripts are fact. I’ll decide at that point.
But feel free to hold on to partisan politics. That’s your right.
Because in reality, rational non-partisan citizens see the fact that we have a chance to solve a long-standing gape in our governmental structure.
Re: Re: Re:10
Failure of failed pull-out AC, oh my!
You’re not an AC, but nice try.
I posted the link.
You posted a link to a story written by an unreliable source.
If you don’t like the source that’s up to you to decide on.
I don’t believe AC simply dislikes the source. As they’ve said, it’s unreliable. Furthermore, it’s the only website I can find with an article telling that news, which makes it very likely to be fake news. Have you got a link to another, more reliable source, or are you just going to carry on doubling down on what looks very much like a lie?
P.S. You’re no less partisan than anyone else here, but you keep repeating your Republican talking point of “neutrality”. It’s all you’ve got left now.
Re: Re: Re:11 BSABSVR bro
Lost is the definition Both Sides Are Bad So Vote Republican.
Re: Re: Re:12
I vote for who checks the most issue boxes for me. If no good choice, I look for the most disruptive
Chaos breeds comprise
Re: Re: Re:13 Stupid is as stupid does
The weight of carrying around all that cognitive dissonance must be exhausting.
Re: Re: Re:11
It didn’t take but one page to find multiple national reports today.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/23/what-did-biden-really-know-about-the-drive-to-raid-mar-a-lago/
Fox News Also has stories.
Two fact checking sites say false but a 3rd has a more realistic “unlikely” “based on current evidence”.
You’ll note I stopped short of calling or fact. I said there was a report.
It wouldn’t be surprising, such investigations are typical of both parties.
Re: Re: Re:12
Two fact checking sites say false but a 3rd has a more realistic “unlikely” “based on current evidence”.
Don’t appreciate the links to your two favorite “alt-truth” websites, but I do appreciate that you admitted the story was made up.
Re: Re: Re:13
You may not like the NYP but you’ll be hard pressed to show any level of fraud on their part.
They are hardly The Nation or InfoWars.
Plug in the search terms and that’s what comes up.
Re: Re: Re:
Again… any visible act taken that could be assumed to be unfavorable towards Trump would incite and incentivize his deluded fanbase. That much was not a surprise. That much was obvious common knowledge. The team could have been one person going into Trump’s place a la Mission Impossible or an army razing the complex to the ground and you’d still be here screaming “BUT HER EMAILS”.
You’re trying really hard to turn this into a gotcha moment in a bid to salvage what fragments of reputation you have left. It’s not working.
Re: Re: Re:2
You’re welcome to (mis)believe whatever you want.
The man is a non-factor to me. Especially here. What is of interest is how they deal with all the departmental overlap. The rights and privileges of a president. The time table, if any, where such legal abilities are removed or relinquished.
And what the moderate and independent reaction is to this. As far as polling goes trumps cult is only a subset of republicans. But he got a wave of a bump post raid.
The raid unprecedented.
Waiving executive privilege is unprecedented. All of this is unprecedented. Everything here is.
It’s going to be an interesting trial. If they charge him.
Re: Re: Re:3
*The man is a non-factor to me. *
Methinks the troll doth protest too much.
Re: Re: Re:4
I think you fail to understand what protest means.
Given I really, really, hope they charge him.
We may finally have it settled where powers end, and how much the president can and can not do.
Re: Re: Re:
Still defending Trump while using your lest breath to deny it I see.
Re: Re: Re:2
Not sure how you reach that conclusion, but whatever.
Despite what you believe, this is going to be an interesting case if he’s charged.
There’s a lot of inconclusive methodology in how our government works and a lot of untested rules.
This also goes back to Nixon, and the whole “not illegal when the president does it” idea. Though that case was criminal actions and this is about presidential permissions.
Can a president, regardless of law, statute, or full, unilaterally declare the status of documents.
If so, does that hold up in a vacuum.
🍿
Re: Re: Re:3 *eyeroll emoji*
“Not sure how you reach that conclusion, but whatever.”
https://www.techdirt.com/user/lostinlodos/
…
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, please. Feel free to peruse!
With a single exclusion (Queen of waste of space) I am no more or less supportive of abiding by the legal process regardless of who the person or party is. My history will show that.
Now, Clinton, i don’t care what they get her for. Just find something. Nobody lives that long without breaking some law or statute somewhere!
Re: Re: Re:5
The same as you. I wonder what you think should happen if someone else decides to go after you and find some archaic or obscure law you inadvertently broke?
Given the sheer amount of vitriol you have to the point where you want to look for expired parking tickets to nail someone for, it really does boggle the mind. What, did someone piss in your oatmeal every day for a month when you were a kid and say it was from Hilary Clinton?
Re: Re: Re:6
As I said, I’m sure I broke something somewhere. There’s less of a time limitation on things like civil fines. So yes,
If someone somewhere finds one on some old computer and and has backed evidence, I owe it.
And there’s multiple tv shows about random archaic laws in this country. I don’t doubt I broke a few here or there. I’ve been alive for some time now
If it’s within the SoL, then I should, indeed, face a hearing.
And if the law is unjust, despite what judges pretend, the defendant has the right to challenge the law and the jury has the right to overturn it.
If the law is just I accept the consequences. Such a the fine for not using parking lights when idle on a street in a small town a few years back.
If the law is unjust I WILL challenge it. And won’t be swayed by simple contempt. Laws like not farting on a public street before noon on Sunday.
Re: Re: Re:5
Denial isn’t just a water feature at Mar-A-Lago bro.
Re:
Hey, Lostcause. Something you need to know about your godking.
Re: Re:
Uh, already knew that.l he had classified documents. That was reported the next day. I didn’t doubt it. (As I posted earlier I wondered more if he had a right or precedence to be holding whatever was seized.
But thanks. For linking to an article whose headline make it clear they won’t be non-partisan.
Up to a court to decide if he had the legal right to have them or not. An interesting case to come for sure!
For those of us not bowing down to a former president, Nor spending every moment of our day thinking about how “bad” orange man was:
There’s a lot more here than just Trump.
Some of us are actually non-partisan and are interested in the case than the parties!
Was such a raid justified, or abuse of power
Standards of declassification
Executive privilege
Post-presidency clearance
Presidential documents record
Rights granted by separation of powers
Etc.
Re: Re: Re:
There’s something else you should know: not only did your godking commit a crime with regard to the hundreds (thousands?) of documents he attempted to steal, he’s actually admitted it, tossing his presumption of innocence out the window. Additionally, you complain about the previously linked website not being non-partisan, and yet you obviously get your news from the New York Post, Fox News, and/or the Daily Mail, all of which are right wing and therefore also not non-partisan. Can you say ‘hypocrisy’?
Re: Re: Re:2
Actually, the only national paper I get news from daily is NYT. I get the WSJ on Friday. But don’t read much beyond actual trading reports.
Fox News no longer offers a print (email/rss) feed for free. Not since the end of last year.
I will read a story from the NYP when someone tosses a link my way. Doesn’t happen often.
Daily mail is a British paper. I assume their focus is on British news. And I have no interest in what happens outside of my own country unless it’s an offensive strike. They all talk about the royal family and parliament and the EU and crap I simply don’t care about.
You seem desperate to make out some level in trump himself in my watching the case. When my only initial commentary was about how such an over done over the top display of a raid fed right into the far right lions conspiracy theories and has the potential to give weight to some of those theories. Something the Dems don’t need going into what appears to be a Republican sweep of a midterm. Because this is going to be in everyone’s minds far after November!
And if you don’t think this will have an effect on otherwise moderates, when everything about it looks like something done up for a Hollywood movie,…
They way this was done, handled, vs the other methods possible, such as much lower profile, are going to bite all of us.
Re: Re: Re:3
Actuality, the most recent thing I’ve seen, just now, is Trump apparently has the surveillance footage. And May release it.
I hope he does, would be telling to see exactly what happened. Then all rumours are crushed with facts.
Re: Re: Re:4
“But I swear I’m not a Trump fanboy! I just really, really want him to go after Clinton. I’d gladly fuck his footprints and tongue-bath his cock if it’d mean he’d do it!”
Re: Re: Re:5
Nice to know your feelings. I guess. Nobody asked how you felt about him though.
Re: Re: Re:6
Maybe you should sign in next time when you reply to yourself.
Re: Re: Re:6
IF the cock fits bro…
Re: Re: Re:3
“Overdone”; you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: Re: Re:4
The only footage I’ve seen was from two local broadcast stations. Both showed dozens of cars rolling up and/or parked.
I don’t get whey they didn’t send a few marshals to knock on the door, and demand the documents.
Re: Re: Re:5
I don’t get whey they didn’t send a few marshals to knock on the door, and demand the documents.
Because they’d done that already and only a few boxes were returned.
Re: Re: Re:6
When at first you don’t…
Re: Re: Re:7 Actually I am sure, cause it's ya boi.
… You get a search warrant and go in with enough agents to get the job done in a singe day.
I’m glad we both agree on that simple fact, but I’m not sure why it took so long for you to come around.