Trump Consciousness

I almost started to think you could be reasoned with (in reading your reply with regards to world view). But if you think that stealing documents in transit with a delivery service is comical... documents that assist in building the case against the Biden family (including Joe Biden), then I have to accept that you are likely ethically and/or integrally compromised by TDS. And I truly do not intend to ad hominen at you and it is not meant that way... but TDS can bring forth that type of "thinking" that then results in one's post that such an act/crime is comical.
Sorry, you made an assumption about my use of the term "comical". That's my fault for being glib.

What's comical to me is that a supposedly reputable journalist would entrust such an important document to any third part without ensuring they'd archived the information first. (i.e., make copies) I find this to be negligence of the highest order if the documents a) did actually exist and b) contained the type of damning information they supposedly contained.

What's not comical is a criminal act if, indeed, these documents were intercepted and destroyed.

Red flags to my read.
 
I get it.

I also believe I get Chester's post as well.

I absolutely believe that scientists like Ioannidis should be part of the dialogue. But are you suggesting his voice is "better"? That he is somehow insulated or protected from the establishment? And if so, how are we to know this?

For example, Andrew Gelman (Director of Applied Statistics at Columbia) has questioned some of Ioannidis' statistical work. Is Gelman to be dismissed as just part of the scientific establishment? Should he be advising governments?

In summary, how am I to know which wear white hats and which wear black?
I am saying that for something as drastic as closing the economy of just about every major Western country, there people should be allowed at least to present their case to the public, and hopefully debate with each other. At the moment we hear one side only from the media, and people only even know there is another side if they come to places like this.

I also think - as in my original example - I would feel a lot more content if the scientists in the camp that wants these lockdowns, at least acknowledged publicly that theirs is not accepted universally by their colleagues, and maybe actually link to the alternative points of view in their written articles.

Another related issue here, is that science can become ridiculously compartmentalised. Thus climatologists will claim that meteorologists are not climatologists so their views about climate change do not count. Likewise those who study epidemics using computer modelling, don't seem to recoginise that there are epidemiologists who have a valid view, as well as people like John P. A. Ioannidis, who keeps a more general eye on questions of statistical validity.

Regarding coronavirus, the camp who say we should remain locked down until the vaccine is available, are going to be very popular with mega bilionairs who stand to make a vast fortune selling their vaccines. Given that you already know that scientists are not always squeaky clean, is it a big step to assume that these scientists make a considerable sum of money from their position, or that the heads of the relevant labs get to trouser some cash?

David
 
It is a mistake to expect them to abide facts, reason, and logic.

Don't make that mistake. Here's a whole article on that...

----------------------

"One way to describe the great divide within mainstream politics is that one side is the partisans and the other side objectivists. The partisans are focused on their objectives and what they think is good for their side. They just want to win and don’t worry too much about how they win. The objectivists are focused on facts and think that truth will prevail eventually. The partisans are what we call the Left and the objectivists are what we call the Right in America.

The partisans are an ends justifies the means mode of thought. They are unconstrained by rules or convention. In fact, they are not limited by what they said last week, as last week was a different time with different goals. In a world where winning is the only thing that matters, everything else bends to serve that end. If being seen as on the science is useful in the moment, they love science. If treating science like magic is useful next week, then next week they will mock science.

Objectivists, of course, find this mind boggling. They look at these contradictions as the Achilles’s heel of their opponents. They spend a lot of time pointing out how the partisans are contradicting what they said last week. Often this is effective, as the public tends to side with the objectivists in most things. The climate change stuff is a good example of how the partisans harm their own cause. Their flexibility with the truth is a liability when asking the public to take their word on science.

For the most part, though, this willingness to transcend facts, and even reality in some cases, is a great advantage in a democracy. Politics in a democracy is immediate, rather than deliberative, so that first impression counts for a lot. If in the fullness of time those initial arguments are found to be full of lies or simply wrong, it does not matter as everyone is onto the next thing. It is rare in a democracy for the debate to circle back and address an old argument or have a do-over.

A good example of how this works is the term “gun show loophole.” This remains a popular catchphrase on the Left. They know gun control is wildly unpopular, so they talk about ending gun show loopholes. The fact that there is no such thing as a gun show loophole does not matter. It sounds good. People don’t like loopholes of any sort as they seem dishonest, so they support ending gun show loopholes. The Left can appear reasonable, despite perpetrating a fraud on the public.

Of course, this summer we got to experience another example of how the truth is no constraint to the partisan. The people burning, looting and attacking people in the streets have been labeled peaceful protesters. Just this week, as video comes out of massive looting and pillaging in Philadelphia, the governor of the state called it a mostly peaceful protest. That strikes the objectivists as insane, but from the point of view of the partisan, it helps their cause and that’s all that matters.

As violence spread around the country this summer, the chant from the rioters was often something like “silence is violence.” In other words, if you did not vocally support them, they could rightfully assume you were plotting violence or supported violence against them, so they were justified in using violence. In other words, to the partisan, their violence is speech, while your speech is violence. The objectivists are stymied by this sleight of hand, so they have remained dumbstruck by it.

This willingness to transcend the rules of language was on display this week as democrats threw a choreographed tantrum over Judge Barrett. They claimed that Trump was packing the court, a term that goes back a century to when FDR tried to increase the number of judges, so he could get his guys on the bench. The fact that Trump was not actually doing anything like that was not a constraint on the Democrats bleating about court packing all week.

Just as their violence is speech, while your speech is violence, the logic of the situation is being turned on its head. They now claim that their plans to pack the court are a justified response to Trump packing the court. You see, when their enemy scrupulously follows the rules it is a gross violation of procedure, but when they overturn procedure it is restoring order and balance. This is not mere hypocrisy. This is the natural detachment from objectivity that is a predicate for the partisan.

This is why the partisans tend to prevail in a democracy. They have a wider range of options because they are not limited by facts and reason. Additionally, the objectivists are self-limiting, often ceding the field because they think the rules require it. One side gets to play dirty, while the other side tries to talk them out of it. The truth is, there is no reasoning with a partisan. There is no way to reason with someone who will not stipulate to the basic facts of life. They exist beyond reason.

This is the story of the last 30 years. As the partisans have become increasingly partisan, which means less constrained by reality, the objectivists have become more certain that reality will step and do the job they refuse to do. They imagine a time when the partisan suddenly realizes the truth of his situation, throws down his weapons and embraces the objectivist as a brother in logic. For the objectivist, reason has become escapism in order to avoid what must be done.

A byproduct of this dynamic is that most people have no voice in the media, government or any other area of public life. The partisans advance their positions on behalf of their cause, while the objectivists fret about factual accuracy. In a democracy, objectivity is not a constituency, so the objectivists end up representing the interests of abstract concepts, rather than genuine people, which means the bulk of the people have no representative.

Another old saying relevant here is that in war, truth is the first casualty. The reason for this is war is a conflict between two sides, neither of which has a reason to see things from the point of view of the other side. It is the ultimate partisan conflict. If there is ever going to be a force to topple the current Left, their first task will be to eliminate those more concerned about truth and reason than the welfare of genuine people."
Super - was that your article, or are you quoting someone?

David
 
I get it.

I also believe I get Chester's post as well.

I absolutely believe that scientists like Ioannidis should be part of the dialogue. But are you suggesting his voice is "better"? That he is somehow insulated or protected from the establishment? And if so, how are we to know this?

For example, Andrew Gelman (Director of Applied Statistics at Columbia) has questioned some of Ioannidis' statistical work. Is Gelman to be dismissed as just part of the scientific establishment? Should he be advising governments?

In summary, how am I to know which wear white hats and which wear black?

This is wholly your own choice! You and you alone are responsible to yourself for what information you incorporate into your thinking when making your provisional conclusions and/or your final ones.

Just don't impose upon others what you think they should provisionally conclude or ultimately conclude for themselves. You can make your case for your own, but you have no human right to imose it. Nor does the US Government according to the US Constitution for matters such as this one (the covid operation).

In addition, fair minded folks would ask for fair treatment of views that may not or don't fit within the obvious overall agenda of the groups that reside under the umbrella I described above. When you have the most pervasive sources of information censoring information that poses a threat to the agendas of these groups, poses a threat to the achievement of their actual goals, then a fair minded individual, especially the liberals of my younger days who were champions of free speech and transparency (where has all that "good" about what liberalism used to stand for gone?), would scream to the hilltops about that, even if they personally didn't share the same views or even if they could see that the actions of censoring might result in their own personal desires to be achieved.

This is the dynamic of the day. And it is this dynamic that anyone who legitimately thinks they should be heard and yet does not stand against has no standing to be heard.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, you made an assumption about my use of the term "comical". That's my fault for being glib.

What's comical to me is that a supposedly reputable journalist would entrust such an important document to any third part without ensuring they'd archived the information first. (i.e., make copies) I find this to be negligence of the highest order if the documents a) did actually exist and b) contained the type of damning information they supposedly contained.

What's not comical is a criminal act if, indeed, these documents were intercepted and destroyed.

Red flags to my read.
It is looking like you made your own error in "assumption" -

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-says-his-documents-on-hunter-biden-were-lost-in-the-mail/

The shocking news prompted many fans of Tucker Carlson Tonight to voice their disbelief, on Twitter, that the host had mailed a package so explosive cross-country — without having made copies. But fear not: Carlson told Salon reporter Roger Sollenberger via text that he had indeed made copies of the allegedly hot docs…
and... https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/...mily-documents-removed-from-shipping-package/

We have learned from an extremely reliable source in a position to know that Fox News did in fact keep a copy of the documents.
Also, any reasonable minded person would know that a responsible news organization at the level of FOX News would absolutely have copies (probably multiple sets as well as back up electronically) of any important documents they send via any 3rd part courier service anywhere. Likely, because time restraints are critical on a show like Tucker's and because this is so obviously logical to do... Tucker didn't mention it on air.

[UPDATE - this just in] - Just reported on Lou Dobbs tonight (5:10 PM eastern time, Thursday, October 29, 2020)

UPS (the shipping company) has "found" the documents and is in process of returning them to FOX News.

Speculation by Chester only... the individual who stole them was faced with some serious consequences which, with this person's cooperation, would be less than otherwise.
 
Last edited:
It is a mistake to expect them to abide facts, reason, and logic.

Don't make that mistake. Here's a whole article on that...

----------------------

"One way to describe the great divide within mainstream politics is that one side is the partisans and the other side objectivists. The partisans are focused on their objectives and what they think is good for their side. They just want to win and don’t worry too much about how they win. The objectivists are focused on facts and think that truth will prevail eventually. The partisans are what we call the Left and the objectivists are what we call the Right in America.

The partisans are an ends justifies the means mode of thought. They are unconstrained by rules or convention. In fact, they are not limited by what they said last week, as last week was a different time with different goals. In a world where winning is the only thing that matters, everything else bends to serve that end. If being seen as on the science is useful in the moment, they love science. If treating science like magic is useful next week, then next week they will mock science.

Objectivists, of course, find this mind boggling. They look at these contradictions as the Achilles’s heel of their opponents. They spend a lot of time pointing out how the partisans are contradicting what they said last week. Often this is effective, as the public tends to side with the objectivists in most things. The climate change stuff is a good example of how the partisans harm their own cause. Their flexibility with the truth is a liability when asking the public to take their word on science.

For the most part, though, this willingness to transcend facts, and even reality in some cases, is a great advantage in a democracy. Politics in a democracy is immediate, rather than deliberative, so that first impression counts for a lot. If in the fullness of time those initial arguments are found to be full of lies or simply wrong, it does not matter as everyone is onto the next thing. It is rare in a democracy for the debate to circle back and address an old argument or have a do-over.

A good example of how this works is the term “gun show loophole.” This remains a popular catchphrase on the Left. They know gun control is wildly unpopular, so they talk about ending gun show loopholes. The fact that there is no such thing as a gun show loophole does not matter. It sounds good. People don’t like loopholes of any sort as they seem dishonest, so they support ending gun show loopholes. The Left can appear reasonable, despite perpetrating a fraud on the public.

Of course, this summer we got to experience another example of how the truth is no constraint to the partisan. The people burning, looting and attacking people in the streets have been labeled peaceful protesters. Just this week, as video comes out of massive looting and pillaging in Philadelphia, the governor of the state called it a mostly peaceful protest. That strikes the objectivists as insane, but from the point of view of the partisan, it helps their cause and that’s all that matters.

As violence spread around the country this summer, the chant from the rioters was often something like “silence is violence.” In other words, if you did not vocally support them, they could rightfully assume you were plotting violence or supported violence against them, so they were justified in using violence. In other words, to the partisan, their violence is speech, while your speech is violence. The objectivists are stymied by this sleight of hand, so they have remained dumbstruck by it.

This willingness to transcend the rules of language was on display this week as democrats threw a choreographed tantrum over Judge Barrett. They claimed that Trump was packing the court, a term that goes back a century to when FDR tried to increase the number of judges, so he could get his guys on the bench. The fact that Trump was not actually doing anything like that was not a constraint on the Democrats bleating about court packing all week.

Just as their violence is speech, while your speech is violence, the logic of the situation is being turned on its head. They now claim that their plans to pack the court are a justified response to Trump packing the court. You see, when their enemy scrupulously follows the rules it is a gross violation of procedure, but when they overturn procedure it is restoring order and balance. This is not mere hypocrisy. This is the natural detachment from objectivity that is a predicate for the partisan.

This is why the partisans tend to prevail in a democracy. They have a wider range of options because they are not limited by facts and reason. Additionally, the objectivists are self-limiting, often ceding the field because they think the rules require it. One side gets to play dirty, while the other side tries to talk them out of it. The truth is, there is no reasoning with a partisan. There is no way to reason with someone who will not stipulate to the basic facts of life. They exist beyond reason.

This is the story of the last 30 years. As the partisans have become increasingly partisan, which means less constrained by reality, the objectivists have become more certain that reality will step and do the job they refuse to do. They imagine a time when the partisan suddenly realizes the truth of his situation, throws down his weapons and embraces the objectivist as a brother in logic. For the objectivist, reason has become escapism in order to avoid what must be done.

A byproduct of this dynamic is that most people have no voice in the media, government or any other area of public life. The partisans advance their positions on behalf of their cause, while the objectivists fret about factual accuracy. In a democracy, objectivity is not a constituency, so the objectivists end up representing the interests of abstract concepts, rather than genuine people, which means the bulk of the people have no representative.

Another old saying relevant here is that in war, truth is the first casualty. The reason for this is war is a conflict between two sides, neither of which has a reason to see things from the point of view of the other side. It is the ultimate partisan conflict. If there is ever going to be a force to topple the current Left, their first task will be to eliminate those more concerned about truth and reason than the welfare of genuine people."
Fantastic article that should be read by every member.
 
It is looking like you made your own error in "assumption" -

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-says-his-documents-on-hunter-biden-were-lost-in-the-mail/



and... https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/...mily-documents-removed-from-shipping-package/



Also, any reasonable minded person would know that a responsible news organization at the level of FOX News would absolutely have copies (probably multiple sets as well as back up electronically) of any important documents they send via any 3rd part courier service anywhere. Likely, because time restraints are critical on a show like Tucker's and because this is so obviously logical to do... Tucker didn't mention it on air.

[UPDATE - this just in] - Just reported on Lou Dobbs tonight (5:10 PM eastern time, Thursday, October 29, 2020)

UPS (the shipping company) has "found" the documents and is in process of returning them to FOX News.

Speculation by Chester only... the individual who stole them was faced with some serious consequences which, with this person's cooperation, would be less than otherwise.
[UPDATE - this just in] - Just reported on Lou Dobbs tonight (5:10 PM eastern time, Thursday, October 29, 2020)

UPS (the shipping company) has "found" the documents and is in process of returning them to FOX News.

Speculation by Chester only... the individual who stole them was faced with some serious consequences which, with this person's cooperation, would be less than otherwise.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-lost-hunter-biden-package-went-missing-mail/
 
Last edited:
I am saying that for something as drastic as closing the economy of just about every major Western country, there people should be allowed at least to present their case to the public, and hopefully debate with each other. At the moment we hear one side only from the media, and people only even know there is another side if they come to places like this.
We need to establish what point in time you are point to here. I'm assuming you are talking about the March/April timeline when economies were "closed" per se. If you are talking about the present day then I don't think its fair to call economies "closed"; at least here in the U.S. Compromised and not back to normal for sure, but closed isn't a fair representation.

And back then Ioannidis certainly made his views known including a prediction of 20,000 U.S. deaths from COVID. He also did not offer any public policy advice as we discussed ad nauseam in the COVID thread. He was, rightfully, pointing out flaws in the models that were being put forth at the time. He didn't resolve the policy decisions that needed to be made (nor would I have expected him to), but waiting for more data (what he seemed to be suggesting) wasn't a practical option. An active decision had to be made.

I also think - as in my original example - I would feel a lot more content if the scientists in the camp that wants these lockdowns, at least acknowledged publicly that theirs is not accepted universally by their colleagues, and maybe actually link to the alternative points of view in their written articles.
So would I. Notice, Ioannidis doesn't do this either. He's taken a stance much like his brethren have. He also predicted 20,000 U.S. deaths from COVID in his original analysis.

Another related issue here, is that science can become ridiculously compartmentalised. Thus climatologists will claim that meteorologists are not climatologists so their views about climate change do not count. Likewise those who study epidemics using computer modelling, don't seem to recoginise that there are epidemiologists who have a valid view, as well as people like John P. A. Ioannidis, who keeps a more general eye on questions of statistical validity.
Agreed.

Regarding coronavirus, the camp who say we should remain locked down until the vaccine is available, are going to be very popular with mega bilionairs who stand to make a vast fortune selling their vaccines. Given that you already know that scientists are not always squeaky clean, is it a big step to assume that these scientists make a considerable sum of money from their position, or that the heads of the relevant labs get to trouser some cash?
Its just basic math to refute this one David. Global GDP was crushed by the lockdown in March/April as we all know. The result was a drop in corporate sentiment as it relates to expected profits and customer demand for their products/services. Billionaire owners of these companies were telling us that the lockdown was not going to be fiscally good for them. (Rather obvious.)

Sure, there were and are likely a subset of businesses (and associated billionaires) who stood to profit from the pandemic. No different than any exogenous shock to the economy including more loathsome types such as war, famine, and pandemics. But the majority, I'd argue an extreme majority, of fiscally motivated billionaires did not nor do they want a continued, compromised economy. So while there may be some profiting from selling vaccines there are multiples more who are motivated to fight through any plandemic for their own interests; let alone ethics (presuming some billionaires have ethics!).

It just seems like folks are selective when saying which scientists are honest and which wealth scion is good, while painting others as dishonest and evil. The evidence offered to discern between the two seems quite meager.
 
Also, any reasonable minded person would know that a responsible news organization at the level of FOX News would absolutely have copies (probably multiple sets as well as back up electronically) of any important documents they send via any 3rd part courier service anywhere. Likely, because time restraints are critical on a show like Tucker's and because this is so obviously logical to do... Tucker didn't mention it on air.
I don't find it reasonable at all for Tucker to have omitted mentioning he didn't have copies. It seems quite the opposite of reasonable to me actually as it leads to assumptions such as the one I made.

Glad he has copies. I presume their vetting the documents for their veracity and accuracy; hopefully to be released to us soon.
 
It just seems like folks are selective when saying which scientists are honest and which wealth scion is good, while painting others as dishonest and evil. The evidence offered to discern between the two seems quite meager.
You are evading the biggest point of all - the mainstream media (back massively by Big Pharma) and social media (part of the corporate mega giant cartel) have massively suppressed dissenting views. When we must exist within that type of environment/dynamic and we uncover all sorts of evidence that suggests the "scientists" and "health officials" and or self appointed health experts (ala Bill Gates) with regards to possible "compromise" and"corruption" and even possible exposure to blackmail (Epstein style / China style blackmail), then an individual has the right to be skeptikal as to what they are trying to make us believe.

Surely you can see that, Silence, Yes? If not, my only guess is that you are blinded by the hope your political personal goals come true and that is precisely at the heart of the article posted by Charlie Primero.
 
Donald Trump: Jack Nicklaus Endorsement a ‘Great Honor’

Nicklaus wrote:

Through the years, I have been blessed to personally know several Presidents on both sides of the aisle. All were good people. All loved their country. And all believed in the American Dream.​
I have had the privilege over the last 3/1/2 years to get to know our current President a little more as his term has progressed. I have been very disappointed at what he’s had to put up with from many directions, but with that, I have seen a resolve and a determination to do the right thing for our country. He has delivered on his promises. He’s worked for the average person. In my opinion, he has been more diverse than any President I have seen and has tried to help people from all walks of life – equally.​

I’m just a guy from Ohio and a Midwestern middle-calls family, whose grandfathers both worked on the railroad. They have their son – my father – the opportunity to pursue his education and his American Dream. I was taught strong family values and worked hard to pursue my own dreams – my own American dream. I also believe that Donald Trump’s policies will bring the American Dream to many families across the nation who are still trying to achieve it.​
You might not like the way our President says or tweets some things – and trust me, I have told him that! – but I have learned to look past that and focus on what he’s tried to accomplish. This is not a personality contest; it’s about patriotism policies and the people they impact. His love for America and its citizens, and putting his country first has come through loud and clear. How he has said it has not been important to me. What has been important are his actions. Now you have the opportunity to take action. I know we are only a few days from Nov. 3 and Election Day, but I am certain many of you have not yet made up your minds. But if we want to continue to have the opportunity to pursue the American Dream and not evolved into a socialist America and have the government run your life, then I strongly recommend you consider Donald J. Trump for another 4 years. I certainly have and already cast my vote for him!​
 
Many countries in Europe are approaching a lockdown that will probably last until April next year. The cause is fairly obvious - lockdowns don't kill off the virus, they just delay some of the infections - so the numbers bounce back afterwards.

I am not quite sure what the situation is like in the US, because many states did not do lockdowns, and are probably in better condition, but right now in Europe the prospect of a whole winter of lockdown is pretty dire. We already have almost no healthcare - as in patients with cancer are dying because they cannot get treatment:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...staff-urge-PM-rational-approach-pandemic.html

Smaller medical problems are very hard to to get treated. Minor injuries clinics seem to have closed ..... it is a mess, believe me.

We will have people unable to pay their rent because in Britain there is no more money to to pay people to idle at home (it was used up on the first lockdown). There is a hell of a crisis coming as a result of this.

David
 
Last edited:
I don't find it reasonable at all for Tucker to have omitted mentioning he didn't have copies. It seems quite the opposite of reasonable to me actually as it leads to assumptions such as the one I made.

Glad he has copies. I presume their vetting the documents for their veracity and accuracy; hopefully to be released to us soon.
It is now clear why he didn't say "he had copies" - he didn't need to. What was sent was a flash drive which is exactly what I would have done myself. I certainly would not have sent "original copies" anyways. That would be beyond stupid.

Sending the documents as electronic files suggests quite strongly these same files are safe and secure on other secure electronic storage and likely also suggests the original files, if ever on paper, are also quite secure.

Note that these days, there are original documents in electronic format only. If someone printed one, it would be a print copy of the original electronic document. This is our world now... has been that way for awhile (in fact).
 
You are evading the biggest point of all - the mainstream media (back massively by Big Pharma) and social media (part of the corporate mega giant cartel) have massively suppressed dissenting views. When we must exist within that type of environment/dynamic and we uncover all sorts of evidence that suggests the "scientists" and "health officials" and or self appointed health experts (ala Bill Gates) with regards to possible "compromise" and"corruption" and even possible exposure to blackmail (Epstein style / China style blackmail), then an individual has the right to be skeptikal as to what they are trying to make us believe.

Surely you can see that, Silence, Yes? If not, my only guess is that you are blinded by the hope your political personal goals come true and that is precisely at the heart of the article posted by Charlie Primero.
I'm not evading anything. I responded to David's points.

It seems you are telling me that Big Pharma and social media tech firms are the bad actors. I'll grant they might be. Fair enough?

Here's the next question: Why are all the other billionaires allowing them to destroy our economy? Big Pharma and tech probably makes up something close to 20% of the market cap these days (might even be a bit more). That said, the rest of the corporate interest is a majority and an extended lock-down is generally a bad thing for them as I've stated previously. How the hell did Big Pharma (isolating them for a minute) get such an outsized and apparently unchallenged position of power among the industrial elite? I don't see any evidence for it.

Are the big banks bad actors? (Let's not forget Trump has lots of relationships with big banks as its a core part of being a real estate magnate. More broadly, Trump recently reminded us that he has great relationships on Wall Street when talking about Biden's fund raising. Would seem to be great alignment there for these two Forces (Trump and the big banks) to counter the influence of Big Pharma.)
 
It is now clear why he didn't say "he had copies" - he didn't need to. What was sent was a flash drive which is exactly what I would have done myself. I certainly would not have sent "original copies" anyways. That would be beyond stupid.

Sending the documents as electronic files suggests quite strongly these same files are safe and secure on other secure electronic storage and likely also suggests the original files, if ever on paper, are also quite secure.

Note that these days, there are original documents in electronic format only. If someone printed one, it would be a print copy of the original electronic document. This is our world now... has been that way for awhile (in fact).
Of course I'm well aware of all those points regarding digitization of documents. Again, all I had to go by at the time were Carlson's words. In retrospect he was remarkably vague about the whole thing; needlessly so to my view. Curious thing.
 
Of course I'm well aware of all those points regarding digitization of documents. Again, all I had to go by at the time were Carlson's words. In retrospect he was remarkably vague about the whole thing; needlessly so to my view. Curious thing.
Not really - it is a common police tactic to be vague or completely evasive as to what they already know. Not showing your cards can assist in nailing the culprits. That Tucker would be the same makes complete sense. Some may not like that., but liking that or not does not change the reality of what happened and what then later has happened with the flash drive "appearing." Interestingly, there has been no explanation as to how it "suddenly appeared" and the envelope it was original in "was thrown away." The latter suggests a cover up because there could be a forensic examination of the envelope as well as a likely ability to determine if it was manually opened or somehow opened via a machine malfunction.
 
Top