Cont: The Biden Presidency (3)

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
WHAT? White powder was being sent to politicians in three states. A baggie containing white powder, which could have been ricin or anthrax, was found at the WH and you think sending a hazmat team to collect it was the SS covering THEIR arse?

Unbelievable.

Which is handled and stored differently than coke, and in different quantities.

And? That has nothing to do with what I said. Anthrax spores are mixed in a white powder. Ricin is also a white powder. Fentanyl is a white powder. Cocaine is a white powder. You think all of those can't be put in dime baggies?

My point is that a Secret Service more loyal than the current one would have tried to be more discreet - as they have been for Trump, to the point of criminality.

You have no "point"; you have wild conjecture based on absolutely nothing.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

oh, Fentanyl - why didn't you say so???
The stuff that can kill a cop at 30 paces ...

Unlike cops, the Secret Service has pretty much seen it all, and they have procedures for all.

This event was handled badly - the only question is whether that was negligently or intentionally.


Let's not forget that the Secret Service has its own history of scandals involving prostitutes and drugs.

No matter how you turn it, this event has eroded trust between the Service and the Bidens, which makes it harder for the Agents to protect their charges and thus constitutes a failure on their part.

 

[Stacyhs]

oh, Fentanyl - why didn't you say so???
The stuff that can kill a cop at 30 paces ...

Unlike cops, the Secret Service has pretty much seen it all, and they have procedures for all.
This event was handled badly - the only question is whether that was done negligently or intentionally.

You've repeatedly failed to support your claims with any evidence whatsoever, it's all just wild conjecture. But, some people just never learn when to put the shovel down; they'd rather just keep digging deeper and deeper.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

There is a West Wing visitor entrance and a West Wing Executive entrance, the offending powder is now said to have been found near the West Wing Executive entrance. In at least one news report: "The entrance that VP Harris uses."

It was steps away from the "Situation Room"

Contrary to some clever spin work here on the forum, the offending powder was first reported to have been found:

1. In the Library (that's East Wing)

Somehow later, the location changed to:

2. West Wing Visitor's entrance.

And now it has come to rest from its long White House tour to its final resting place in a cubby at the:

3. West Wing Executive entrance.

Yes that's three, count 'em three, different locations where the Cocaine was reportedly found.

Edited to add: The Cocaine has slowly but surely been moving toward the Situation Room which is under construction. This would seem to be the best place for it to be found if one wishes to drop blame on construction workers rather than anyone using the Library. I think that's where we're going on the 2023 Cocaine Grand Tour of the White House.

4. Donny Jnr. al-Assad's stash from when "daddy" was "predisent"

5. Donny boy's stash from when he was "predisent".

Edit: quoted the wrong post, am too lazy to find the right one.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You've repeatedly failed to support your claims with any evidence whatsoever, it's all just wild conjecture. But, some people just never learn when to put the shovel down; they'd rather just keep digging deeper and deeper.

yes.

But the burden of proof is not with ME, it's with the Secret Service that let a dangerous substance that, according to THEM, could have been a poison/bioweapon onto the premises.
So not matter what you want to say, this was a FAILURE of the Secret Service.

Or do you disagree with that?

so, having failed, the question now becomes how they should deal with this.
And they dealt with it in a way that caused harm to the people they are in charge of - reputationally at least.

Again, failure.

Or do you disagree with that?





Why don't you show some exculpatory evidence for the Secret Service?

 

[Stacyhs]

Chris pretends that this is the very first time the Secret Service found coke in the White House - because there never was a JFK and the like.

The assumption that the Service doesn't know how to deal with something like this discreetly is naïve, at best.

At the very minimum, leaking this event is a retaliatory move by the Secret Service - it's also a warning to Biden to stop investigating their role in Jan 6th, lest they happen to find a dead hooker next.

I base my claim on a hazmat team being called in such a visible way, or at all.

Clearly, someone in the chain of command of the Secret Service decided to cover THEIR arse instead of the president's, as is their job.

oh, Fentanyl - why didn't you say so???
The stuff that can kill a cop at 30 paces ...

Unlike cops, the Secret Service has pretty much seen it all, and they have procedures for all.

This event was handled badly - the only question is whether that was negligently or intentionally.


Let's not forget that the Secret Service has its own history of scandals involving prostitutes and drugs.

No matter how you turn it, this event has eroded trust between the Service and the Bidens, which makes it harder for the Agents to protect their charges and thus constitutes a failure on their part.

yes.

But the burden of proof is not with ME, it's with the Secret Service that let a dangerous substance that, according to THEM, could have been a poison/bioweapon onto the premises.
So not matter what you want to say, this was a FAILURE of the Secret Service.

Or do you disagree with that?

When you make the accusation, the burden of proof is most certainly on you.


You've also moved the goalposts. Read back over your posts. All of them are just wild, unsupported by any evidence flights of imagination of the Secret Service 'retaliating' and a 'warning to Biden to stop investigating the SS' role on Jan. 6th, and the SS is covering THEIR arses because they called in a hazmat team to collect an unknown, possibly dangerous, white powder, and it's 'eroded trust between the SS and the Biden'. They weren't about whether the SS failed in their security but about unsupported claims of conspiracy by the SS

so, having failed, the question now becomes how they should deal with this.
And they dealt with it in a way that caused harm to the people they are in charge of - reputationally at least.

Again, failure.

Or do you disagree with that?

I agree they need to find out how the coke got there in the first place and put in measures to keep it from happening again. I do NOT agree that they caused harm to the Bidens. Those who are causing harm are those who are using this to make unfounded and unsupported accusations against Hunter, Joe Biden, the Secret Service, etc. in order to further their own agendas.

Why don't you show some exculpatory evidence for the Secret Service?

The irony of you wanting me to show some exculpatory evidence while you've completely failed to provide a single piece of inculpatory evidence is beyond meter busting.

Just put the shovel down.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

4. Donny Jnr. al-Assad's stash from when "daddy" was "predisent"

5. Donny boy's stash from when he was "predisent".

Edit: quoted the wrong post, am too lazy to find the right one.

Ps this post was supposed to be in reply to a poster viving the most plausible sources of the cocaine. I was just adding two more that would be more plausible than Hunter Biden.

 

[Segnosaur]

yes.

But the burden of proof is not with ME, it's with the Secret Service that let a dangerous substance that, according to THEM, could have been a poison/bioweapon onto the premises.
So not matter what you want to say, this was a FAILURE of the Secret Service.

Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, there is the possibility that the substance could have been a lot more dangerous than it was. But, given the nature of the threat, there might not have been a reasonable way for ANY organization (regardless of how competent) to have prevented this type of scenario (outside of having all visitors strip-searched upon entering, something that would be seen as impractical.)

In other words, its not like there was some protocol the secret service failed to follow, since there may not BE a protocol to handle every possible substance entering the white house.

Metal detectors work ok, but only for guns, knives, etc.

Stationing drug-sniffing dogs around might catch someone bringing in SOME illegal drugs, but it likely won't catch someone bring in some sort of bio or chemical weapon.

 

[Segnosaur]

Wait a sec, did anyone check the perimeter of the white house for bears?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, there is the possibility that the substance could have been a lot more dangerous than it was. But, given the nature of the threat, there might not have been a reasonable way for ANY organization (regardless of how competent) to have prevented this type of scenario (outside of having all visitors strip-searched upon entering, something that would be seen as impractical.)

In other words, its not like there was some protocol the secret service failed to follow, since there may not BE a protocol to handle every possible substance entering the white house.

Metal detectors work ok, but only for guns, knives, etc.

Stationing drug-sniffing dogs around might catch someone bringing in SOME illegal drugs, but it likely won't catch someone bring in some sort of bio or chemical weapon.

Why would it matter that a protocol was followed or not?
They let a potentially lethal substance within the range of high-priority people under their protection.
If they fail to prevent that because of lacking protocols, then it's THEIR fault for not having protocols for that scenario.

The Service prides itself on constantly running scenarios against itself, with Agents playing the intruders etc., so that they don't have to learn from mistakes (because getting your principle killed is not an ideal learning experience), but to pre-empt any possible threat.

Why am I the only one here who thinks the SS needs closer scrutiny instead a pat on the back for overreacting to a threat they themselves failed to prevent?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

When you make the accusation, the burden of proof is most certainly on you.


You've also moved the goalposts. Read back over your posts. All of them are just wild, unsupported by any evidence flights of imagination of the Secret Service 'retaliating' and a 'warning to Biden to stop investigating the SS' role on Jan. 6th, and the SS is covering THEIR arses because they called in a hazmat team to collect an unknown, possibly dangerous, white powder, and it's 'eroded trust between the SS and the Biden'. They weren't about whether the SS failed in their security but about unsupported claims of conspiracy by the SS




I agree they need to find out how the coke got there in the first place and put in measures to keep it from happening again. I do NOT agree that they caused harm to the Bidens. Those who are causing harm are those who are using this to make unfounded and unsupported accusations against Hunter, Joe Biden, the Secret Service, etc. in order to further their own agendas.





The irony of you wanting me to show some exculpatory evidence while you've completely failed to provide a single piece of inculpatory evidence is beyond meter busting.

Just put the shovel down.

There are two levels here: an objective failure on part of the SS, and the reason for that failure.


The first, NO ONE should have a problem admitting to, as it is so obvious.

The second is something we will never know unless we get to see some text-messages between the agents - which we won't because they tend to delete incriminating evidence against themselves and then lie about the reason for the deletion to the DOJ.

by pure Bayesian reasoning, the Secret Service deserves no benefit of the doubt whatsoever, and I find it bizarre how some people feel the need to protect an agency that is has almost no transparency or oversight, and will use criminal means to prevent investigation of itself.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Chris pretends that this is the very first time the Secret Service found coke in the White House - because there never was a JFK and the like.

The assumption that the Service doesn't know how to deal with something like this discreetly is naïve, at best.

Did you miss out on the whole anthrax scare a decade or so ago?

I can guarantee you the SS calls in the hazmat team when an unknown powder is found anywhere near Congress and/or the WH.

At the very minimum, leaking this event is a retaliatory move by the Secret Service - it's also a warning to Biden to stop investigating their role in Jan 6th, lest they happen to find a dead hooker next.

That's an outright bizarre assertion. Was it supposed to be a joke or have you been watching too many movies?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I base my claim on a hazmat team being called in such a visible way, or at all.

Clearly, someone in the chain of command of the Secret Service decided to cover THEIR arse instead of the president's, as is their job.

So too many movies then.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The funniest option is that some tour guest didn't realize they had coke on their person until right before the security screening and decided dumping it was the best course of action.

It happens. I'm sure the people at the airport get all sorts of, 'whoops, forgot I had this' stuff in the trash cans they have for just that very thing before you get to the metal detectors.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Top 10 signs of a Fake Friend:

Et Tu, Megadonor?
Biden keeps getting thwarted by his very own centrists.

But there was one notable non-Republican group that joined those Republicans in petitioning the court to strike down Biden’s proposal: Protect Democracy, a “non-partisan” legal group cofounded by Ian Bassin, Justin Florence, and Emily Loeb, all alums of the Obama administration.

Protect Democracy, which claims to “prevent our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government,” filed an amicus curiae brief to the court to bolster the extremely rickety case that the court used to justify its decision.

“It is important to recognize that both student debt and the pandemic have disproportionately harmed lower income and minority communities,” the brief read. “But the answer to these problems is not the unchecked aggrandizement of executive power.” The message, essentially, was that the organization didn’t like that Biden was trying to pass student debt relief through executive action.

It’s not an uncommon argument, though it’s strange coming from Obama alums. It’s stranger still given that Protect Democracy has one really notable funder: Democratic megadonor and top Biden backer Reid Hoffman.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/student-debt-cancellation-biden-reid-hoffman-megadonor-centrists.html

Obama alums and centrist megadonors siding with Republicans to oppose Biden's popular agenda, what a shock.

 

[Segnosaur]

In other words, its not like there was some protocol the secret service failed to follow, since there may not BE a protocol to handle every possible substance entering the white house.

Why would it matter that a protocol was followed or not?

Because "failure" implies that there was something they could have or should have done but they did not. If there was no ACTUAL way to address the threat, then someone bringing in cocaine (or any other substance) into the white house isn't a failure, its just a fact of life.

They let a potentially lethal substance within the range of high-priority people under their protection.
If they fail to prevent that because of lacking protocols, then it's THEIR fault for not having protocols for that scenario.

Again, what exactly do you EXPECT them to do? Strip-search everyone that comes in?

The Service prides itself on constantly running scenarios against itself, with Agents playing the intruders etc., so that they don't have to learn from mistakes (because getting your principle killed is not an ideal learning experience), but to pre-empt any possible threat.

I am sure they do run lots of scenarios. But how do you prevent something when there is no realistic way to prevent it from happening?

Again, a small package (either containing drugs, or some sort of bio-weapon) is not something that can be detected, outside of requiring all white house visitors to be strip-searched, or encasing the president in carbonite.

Why am I the only one here who thinks the SS needs closer scrutiny

They may need closer scrutiny, but not necessarily over this... (Their response to Jan6 is much more concerning to me.)

instead a pat on the back for overreacting to a threat they themselves failed to prevent?

I don't think anyone is suggesting they are "heroes" for their reactions (no "pat on the back"), nor are they overreacting. The substance was discovered, it was tested, they are trying to find where it came from. Perfectly normal and understandable reaction to the circumstances.

 

[Stacyhs]

There are two levels here: an objective failure on part of the SS, and the reason for that failure.


The first, NO ONE should have a problem admitting to, as it is so obvious.

I AGREED with your question, but note your use of the word 'admitting' which suggests there was first a denial. There was not.

The second is something we will never know unless we get to see some text-messages between the agents - which we won't because they tend to delete incriminating evidence against themselves and then lie about the reason for the deletion to the DOJ."

Yet you so adamantly declared it did cause harm to the Bidens' reputation.

by pure Bayesian reasoning, Great Zaganzian reasoning the Secret Service deserves no benefit of the doubt whatsoever,

FTFY

and I find it bizarre how some people feel the need to protect an agency that is has almost no transparency or oversight, and will use criminal means to prevent investigation of itself.

You use a very wide brush to paint your picture.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I have a question.

Let's assume that the cocaine was Hunter's. Let's also assume that Hunter is a total druggie moron. Let's assume even further that on the 4th of July, he was off his tits on the balcony.

So what? Even if he is a total waste of oxygen scumbag, why does anyone care?

 

[lobosrul5]

I have a question.

Let's assume that the cocaine was Hunter's. Let's also assume that Hunter is a total druggie moron. Let's assume even further that on the 4th of July, he was off his tits on the balcony.

So what? Even if he is a total waste of oxygen scumbag, why does anyone care?

Because there's a LOT of money riding on getting Trump or another GOP duder back into the WH in 18 months. Think of all the mega-yachts that wont be bought, and all the trips to Dubai on Gulfstream 700's that won't be able to be taken if taxes on the mega rich go up, or a bit of profit margin is taken out due to green energy/climate change regulations.

And there's a TV channel and some other media outlets that care very much about said money. Anything, ANYTHING, at all that can get a tiny bit of people to switch their vote is worth going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the tiniest little scandal you can think of. Thats why.

 

[acbytesla]

I don’t think the Secret Service did anything wrong reporting the finding of cocaine in the White House. I don’t think this information makes anyone think negatively about Joe Biden or Hunter Biden who didn't already think that way.

As much as this excites the MAGA-CHUDS, it doesn't actually make a difference to others.