Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AZJonnie

(2,797 posts)
1. Literally all of them? Or just some?
Wed Dec 24, 2025, 05:13 PM
Dec 24

If the latter, someone should try to figure out if the "some that can" could be logically supposed to be the one's Trump wouldn't give a shit about people reading the whole thing, and the one's that cannot are the ones more likely to incriminate Trump himself (to the extent that's possible to determine while still redacted).

It's *probably* just incompetence, but I think one should allow for the possibility that it's actually not (or not entirely). These fuckers are all about deception, that's pretty well proven. If this trick is not universal, we should consider the possibility that the REAL incriminating ones were redacted by professionals a long time time ago, and these ones that can be "hacked" ... were not.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Jake Broe: Anyone can rea...»Reply #1