Was "realclearinvestigations" your first clue?LateSteak69 said:you are going to believe THAT source? totally biased and probably fake.riflebear said:FBI Unit Leading Mar-a-Lago Probe Earlier Ran Discredited Trump-Russia Investigation https://t.co/24EKGjpk96
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) August 18, 2022
FBI raids Trump's home
151,485 Views |
2081 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Harrison Bergeron
Just keep in mind the SECRETE SERVICE was on Trump's property 24/7.
The entire EIGHTEEN MONTHS our ex president master spy left these cases of documents....... in plain sight.
Of course Trump obviously needed some extra cash right ?
The entire EIGHTEEN MONTHS our ex president master spy left these cases of documents....... in plain sight.
Of course Trump obviously needed some extra cash right ?
2012 case vs Bill Clinton....
Old Case Over Audio Tapes in Bill Clinton's Sock Drawer Could Impact Mar-a-Lago Search Dispute - Tennessee Star
Old Case Over Audio Tapes in Bill Clinton's Sock Drawer Could Impact Mar-a-Lago Search Dispute - Tennessee Star
Is JB Katz actually Jennifer Rubin?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
doesnt count because it was a judge ruling about a Dem president..ScottS said:
2012 case vs Bill Clinton....
Old Case Over Audio Tapes in Bill Clinton's Sock Drawer Could Impact Mar-a-Lago Search Dispute - Tennessee Star
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
That's a delicious looking red herring. I have not read anyone state he should not have complied with the warrant. I also do not think anyone advised he flee from the police or shoot at them.quash said:Harrison Bergeron said:Agreed. Nothing screams UNITY like using the FBI to execute a political stunt against a potential political opponent.Sam Lowry said:The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).RMF5630 said:Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.Waco1947 said:Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you SamSam Lowry said:I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.whiterock said:The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.Sam Lowry said:Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.Oldbear83 said:
Sam quoting the Atlantic.
But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'
ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!
I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.Quote:
We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.
my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.
Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.
Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.
I realize that TDS requires calling this a political stunt but this was a by the book search. Any unusual facts derive from the unusual conduct: a presiden walking off with stuff he may be shouldn't have. We'll see.
I do like the way "conservatives" have completely abandoned heir normal stance for searches of Black citizens. "Just follow instructions. Do what the police tell you to do " Unless you're a white elite from the east coast, of course.
It obviously is a stunt. It may have been a by-the-book search but also unprecedented both in target and timing.
Unless you're a Democrat.Sam Lowry said:Nothing is ever completely unrelated to elections. But you can't expect everything to come to a halt every other year. It's an impossible standard.RMF5630 said:Ok this moved as fast as it could. They sure moved quicker on the impeachments and all the other stuff when they wants. You really believe this is all above board and not election related. That Trump is going to sell documents and is a threat to the future of Democracy in the US.Sam Lowry said:It did happen in 2021. This is how long it took to form the committee and build a case with Trump and his people working against them.RMF5630 said:No. Never. I say that if Trump wasn't running or backing candidates none of this would be happening. It is an election year hit, otherwise it would have happened in 2021.Sam Lowry said:Isn't that what you've been saying about Trump and his alleged crimes this whole time -- let the voters decide?RMF5630 said:Don't say the voters will decide, that is horse*****Sam Lowry said:If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.Married A Horn said:
What if it is?
And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.
Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff
The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.
What if the Earth really is flat.Sam Lowry said:What if it's not a stunt?Harrison Bergeron said:Agreed. Nothing screams UNITY like using the FBI to execute a political stunt against a potential political opponent.Sam Lowry said:The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).RMF5630 said:Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.Waco1947 said:Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you SamSam Lowry said:I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.whiterock said:The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.Sam Lowry said:Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:OLDBEAR: I read a wide variety of news and opinion sources in order to familiarize myself with all points of view, evaluate them critically, and reach a deeper understanding of our world.Oldbear83 said:
Sam quoting the Atlantic.
But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'
ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!
I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.Quote:
We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.
my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.
Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.
Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.
Oso, like Sam, plays the victim to hide his own bloody knife.Osodecentx said:Sounds familiar, doesn't it?J.B.Katz said:An America in which Sam Lowrey is kicked out of the conservative country club by the likes of Old Bear to resounding applause because (horrors!) he reads the occasional article in The Atlantic does not have a viable future as a democracy.Oldbear83 said:
Sam quoting the Atlantic.
But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'
If Sam's out because he reads articles from sources you consider suspect, what's the plan for those of us who not only read The Atlantic but hold liberal social views, want everyone--including politicians--to be accountable to the rule of law and want democratic elections that aren't subject to being overturned by gerrymandered state legislatures? Political prison? Gag orders? House arrest?
What's the end game here?
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the the Communist party?"
Have you ever read and enjoyed an article in the Atlantic? "We know who you are!"
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry said:If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.Married A Horn said:
What if it is?
And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.
Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff
The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.
When states change rules to allow election fraud, when major media outlets are monolithically leftist, when social media/big tech censor speech on behalf of politicians, there are no consequences for the left. There is no oversight.
It's just about time to break out the guillotines and dispense with the leftist thieves and the RINO collaborators.
Yawn. You're not getting a civil war no matter how badly you want one.Golem said:Sam Lowry said:If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.Married A Horn said:
What if it is?
And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.
Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff
The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.
When states change rules to allow election fraud, when major media outlets are monolithically leftist, when social media/big tech censor speech on behalf of politicians, there are no consequences for the left. There is no oversight.
It's just about time to break out the guillotines and dispense with the leftist thieves and the RINO collaborators.
quash said:Yawn. You're not getting a civil war no matter how badly you want one.Golem said:Sam Lowry said:If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.Married A Horn said:
What if it is?
And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.
Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff
The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.
When states change rules to allow election fraud, when major media outlets are monolithically leftist, when social media/big tech censor speech on behalf of politicians, there are no consequences for the left. There is no oversight.
It's just about time to break out the guillotines and dispense with the leftist thieves and the RINO collaborators.
Not yet, but with this trajectory unchanged, it will come sooner or later. Id prefer a civil society, but that's not what the left has created today. They weaponized the IRS, the DOJ and weaponized the FBI. The left are banana republic despots
No surprise that after screaming for transparency, Trump‘s lawyers were silent in court. DOJ wants to keep it sealed for its own investigation, but the information —however redacted—would be damning for Trump. It will chronicle criminal activity and intransigence.
— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) August 18, 2022
no surprise that the person who thinks people have to talk in court is upset somebody didnt talk in court..J.B.Katz said:No surprise that after screaming for transparency, Trump‘s lawyers were silent in court. DOJ wants to keep it sealed for its own investigation, but the information —however redacted—would be damning for Trump. It will chronicle criminal activity and intransigence.
— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) August 18, 2022
We are all just shocked that this writer for the Liberal Times thinks this..
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Virtue posturing 101.....just spectacularly wrong advice. Moderate Republicans are literally the only people on the planet which think that way, ergo Exhibit A for why we have Trump.Sam Lowry said:The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).Quote:Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.Quote:Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you SamQuote:I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.Quote:The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.Quote:Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.Quote:Quote:Quote:
We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.
my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.
Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.
Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.
In a functioning democratic system, the stronger one is, the more important it is to play by the rules; and the weaker one is, the more latitude one has with the rules. The key to success is understanding where one is at any given time. And at this particular moment, the left is overplaying the stronger hand, and moderate Republicans are aghast that the right is doing exactly what it should with a weaker hand.
wait. didn't we just raid the home of a former POTUS on a pretext because he incited an insurrection?quash said:Yawn. You're not getting a civil war no matter how badly you want one.Golem said:Sam Lowry said:If the search turns out to be groundless, Biden and his party will suffer the political consequences.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Then no charges will be filed, or they will be minor charges which don't appear to justify the effort.Married A Horn said:
What if it is?
And the damage is done because it is all public. No harm, no foul does not cut it for raiding a former Presidents house without knowing.
Same with the Commission, no charges is not enough to make up for 3 to 4 months of prime time slander. You damn well better have the goods before doing this stuff
The House committee is conducting oversight. It's not up to them whether charges are ultimately filed.
When states change rules to allow election fraud, when major media outlets are monolithically leftist, when social media/big tech censor speech on behalf of politicians, there are no consequences for the left. There is no oversight.
It's just about time to break out the guillotines and dispense with the leftist thieves and the RINO collaborators.
working out pretty well for him, then. He does have a fairly strong basis for defense that will make prosecution difficult anywhere other than a DC-court.J.B.Katz said:
Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you SamNo, it's a Trump-created emergency.Quote:Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.Quote:We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.Quote:I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.Quote:The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).Quote:
Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.
Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.
Trump was asked to return the documents months ago.
Politely.
Several times.
He said he would do it.
Several times.
He never returned the documents.
It became clear to Garland he did not plan to return them.
Garland realized if the government wanted those documents out of Trump's custody, the government was going to have to go get them.
The FBI retrieved them.
And, predictably, the right-wing media and their angry host of viewers concluded this was an impulsive act rather than something that would have happened months ago had the perp been anyone other than Trump b/c the DOJ knew there'd be a backlash.
Garland believed that recovering classified documents from Trump was worth the cost in terms of right-wing backlash, shrieking, screams for him to be fired or shot or stoned, that would inevitably result after Trump started squealing like a stuck pig because he wasn't allowed to steal documents with state secrets and keep them at his house. Where Trump is currently trying to hire 90+ immigrants (perhaps including some from Russia or North Korea or Saudi Arabia?)
Garland isn't a cowboy. So I believe there was a good reason the documents were reclaimed. And that, given Garland's cautious, by-the-book approach, he may have waited too long.
But "the damage is already" done is not a good justification for leaving classified documents in the custody of the dude who did the damage. For him to use as leverage if, indeed, he is ultimately accused of seditious conspiracy.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact
A most characteristic response. You see nothing except a power struggle between factions. You're blind to the larger purpose of the rules, which is to contain partisan rivalries within accepted limits and keep them from tearing the whole structure apart. That's the sense in which they become more important the more we're tempted to discard them.whiterock said:Virtue posturing 101.....just spectacularly wrong advice. Moderate Republicans are literally the only people on the planet which think that way, ergo Exhibit A for why we have Trump.Sam Lowry said:The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).Quote:Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.Quote:Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you SamQuote:I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.Quote:The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.Quote:Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.Quote:Quote:Quote:
We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.
my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.
Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.
Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.
In a functioning democratic system, the stronger one is, the more important it is to play by the rules; and the weaker one is, the more latitude one has with the rules. The key to success is understanding where one is at any given time. And at this particular moment, the left is overplaying the stronger hand, and moderate Republicans are aghast that the right is doing exactly what it should with a weaker hand.
Before we address the latent violation of Godwin's Law, I'm sure several here would appreciate hearin how much of your time as a "conservative" has been "howling in the wilderness" vs "sweetness & light." Has there ever been a golden age you could point to when you did not feel duty bound to ally with the left to correct the right?Sam Lowry said:I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.whiterock said:The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.Sam Lowry said:Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:
I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.Quote:
We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.
my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.
Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.
Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.
Re Godwin: That's not the first time you've indulged in the leftist tactic of calling your opponents Nazis. Over and above the historical fact that Nazi's were a creation of the left rather than the right, the accusation stands in stark irony against the actions of those you are caucusing with: raising black-shirt militias on one's crowd funding platforms to beat & burn their way thru cities to influence an election, usurping state power to intimidate and investigate political opponents, etc.... Trump never did any of that. He's a fricking paragon of virtue compared to the people you ARE willing to ally with.
I could point to my years of defending Trump on this board, but it wouldn't make any difference. Much like I've pointed to the existence of right-wing militias, the way Trump encourages and panders to them, and the role they played in trying to overturn an election. These facts don't fit your narrative. Therefore they don't exist in your world.whiterock said:Before we address the latent violation of Godwin's Law, I'm sure several here would appreciate hearin how much of your time as a "conservative" has been "howling in the wilderness" vs "sweetness & light." Has there ever been a golden age you could point to when you did not feel duty bound to ally with the left to correct the right?Sam Lowry said:I was thinking about a new conservative order when the neocons were dominant, so I'm used to howling in the wilderness. The problem with the post-Trumpian order is that it's shaping up to be more Trumpian than conservative. You pose a false dilemma between alliance with Marxists and alliance with proto-fascists. I refuse to accept it for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history.whiterock said:The problem there is that authoritarianism is being evidenced by Democrats and state institutions controlled by Democrats, who are indeed woke cultural Marxists, with whom you are in tactical alliance to destroy political opposition (see above, bold) you cannot defeat with ideas.Sam Lowry said:Your posts refer to legitimate concerns about authoritarianism and demagoguery as "onanism" -- a slightly nicer way of throwing the jagoff sign whenever someone mentions the Constitution. And you fairly consistently label your opponents as woke Marxists or Marxist dupes of one variety or another.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:
I read the Atlantic. But I can't remember ever finding cause to cite it to support a conservative case for anything.Quote:
We are at a peculiar moment in history when "You support the regime!" is an indictment hurled at conservatives by people who think of themselves as conservatives. Supporting the regime -- with qualifications, with the knowledge that it is not synonymous with the current administration or its policies, and with "conversation so nicely / Restricted to What Precisely / and If and Perhaps and But" -- is pretty much what conservatives do: Keeping irresponsible radicals well away from the levers of political power is part of the conservative mandate. Which is what makes it so damned peculiar to see these callow little men citing Edmund Burke as the animating spirit of their reconstituted Jacobinism. Whatever it is to dream of storming some new Bastille and manning ranks of literal or metaphorical guillotines, it isn't conservatism.
my posts fairly consistently question the misplaced sense of virtue of neverTrumpism, not the underlying political ideology of those intoxicated with it.
Fading establishments typically do perceive the new orders rising to replace them as "the monkeys driving the bus." (an actual phrase used by a McLennan County party leadership just after they lost power by wide margin.) The swing voter in the dynamic like that invariably has to weigh the warts on both sides and ultimately decides the new warts are preferable to the old ones. Remember that as you watch returns from WY tonight, which is going to presage the direction for the next several years. Prepare for a long time in the wilderness howling at the darkness.
Trump is not the new order. He is the crucible thru which one will be formed that will likely not include him. You should think about that while you still have a little wax left on your wick.
Re Godwin: That's not the first time you've indulged in the leftist tactic of calling your opponents Nazis. Over and above the historical fact that Nazi's were a creation of the left rather than the right, the accusation stands in stark irony against the actions of those you are caucusing with: raising black-shirt militias on one's crowd funding platforms to beat & burn their way thru cities to influence an election, usurping state power to intimidate and investigate political opponents, etc.... Trump never did any of that. He's a fricking paragon of virtue compared to the people you ARE willing to ally with.
only the stuff found in Trumps undie drawer is exempt according to that..whiterock said:working out pretty well for him, then. He does have a fairly strong basis for defense that will make prosecution difficult anywhere other than a DC-court.J.B.Katz said:
Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you SamNo, it's a Trump-created emergency.Quote:Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.Quote:We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.Quote:I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.Quote:The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).Quote:
Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.
Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.
Trump was asked to return the documents months ago.
Politely.
Several times.
He said he would do it.
Several times.
He never returned the documents.
It became clear to Garland he did not plan to return them.
Garland realized if the government wanted those documents out of Trump's custody, the government was going to have to go get them.
The FBI retrieved them.
And, predictably, the right-wing media and their angry host of viewers concluded this was an impulsive act rather than something that would have happened months ago had the perp been anyone other than Trump b/c the DOJ knew there'd be a backlash.
Garland believed that recovering classified documents from Trump was worth the cost in terms of right-wing backlash, shrieking, screams for him to be fired or shot or stoned, that would inevitably result after Trump started squealing like a stuck pig because he wasn't allowed to steal documents with state secrets and keep them at his house. Where Trump is currently trying to hire 90+ immigrants (perhaps including some from Russia or North Korea or Saudi Arabia?)
Garland isn't a cowboy. So I believe there was a good reason the documents were reclaimed. And that, given Garland's cautious, by-the-book approach, he may have waited too long.
But "the damage is already" done is not a good justification for leaving classified documents in the custody of the dude who did the damage. For him to use as leverage if, indeed, he is ultimately accused of seditious conspiracy.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
4th and Inches said:only the stuff found in Trumps undie drawer is exempt according to that..whiterock said:working out pretty well for him, then. He does have a fairly strong basis for defense that will make prosecution difficult anywhere other than a DC-court.J.B.Katz said:
Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you SamNo, it's a Trump-created emergency.Quote:Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.Quote:We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.Quote:I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.Quote:The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).Quote:
Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.
Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.
Trump was asked to return the documents months ago.
Politely.
Several times.
He said he would do it.
Several times.
He never returned the documents.
It became clear to Garland he did not plan to return them.
Garland realized if the government wanted those documents out of Trump's custody, the government was going to have to go get them.
The FBI retrieved them.
And, predictably, the right-wing media and their angry host of viewers concluded this was an impulsive act rather than something that would have happened months ago had the perp been anyone other than Trump b/c the DOJ knew there'd be a backlash.
Garland believed that recovering classified documents from Trump was worth the cost in terms of right-wing backlash, shrieking, screams for him to be fired or shot or stoned, that would inevitably result after Trump started squealing like a stuck pig because he wasn't allowed to steal documents with state secrets and keep them at his house. Where Trump is currently trying to hire 90+ immigrants (perhaps including some from Russia or North Korea or Saudi Arabia?)
Garland isn't a cowboy. So I believe there was a good reason the documents were reclaimed. And that, given Garland's cautious, by-the-book approach, he may have waited too long.
But "the damage is already" done is not a good justification for leaving classified documents in the custody of the dude who did the damage. For him to use as leverage if, indeed, he is ultimately accused of seditious conspiracy.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact
Not true. The judge doesn't say sock drawer.....U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.
But Jackson's ruling along with the Justice Department's arguments that preceded it made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.
"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.
you must be new..ScottS said:4th and Inches said:only the stuff found in Trumps undie drawer is exempt according to that..whiterock said:working out pretty well for him, then. He does have a fairly strong basis for defense that will make prosecution difficult anywhere other than a DC-court.J.B.Katz said:
Ditto I am a student of history, too Thank you SamNo, it's a Trump-created emergency.Quote:Seems like a fabricated emergency after 18 months.Quote:We don't know what Trump was doing. Some of us want to know. Some of us really, really don't. That's the whole drama in a nutshell.Quote:I would say that the "gentleman's rules" are now more important. If you are going to do what the Dems and you are doing, playing letter of the law games. You can really muck stuff up and get nothing done.Quote:The more polarized it gets, the more important it is to play by the rules (even Queensbury Rules).Quote:
Problem is that as the Dem's go further left and they are pretty darn far now. It will create just as exaggerated response, Trump. When the Dem's embraced AOC and the squad it gave the Authoritarians on both side the fuel they needed. Unless a moderate comes forward, we are in for a period of polarization. The Dems with Hillary and Obama played their role in creating this, just as Trump and W through Cheney/Rumsfeld did.
Does anyone really believe Trump was going to sell docs??? Or that he should go away for 3 years over a not returning docs? No way. It is this type of Cheney, Garland stuff that escalates. Remember, Trump came in wanting to make deals as an outsider. But we got RESIST. Even Biden is building some of the wall. There was room for compromise and Shumer and Pelosi walked out. Never got that. Trump was the guy that would have given to get.
Trump was asked to return the documents months ago.
Politely.
Several times.
He said he would do it.
Several times.
He never returned the documents.
It became clear to Garland he did not plan to return them.
Garland realized if the government wanted those documents out of Trump's custody, the government was going to have to go get them.
The FBI retrieved them.
And, predictably, the right-wing media and their angry host of viewers concluded this was an impulsive act rather than something that would have happened months ago had the perp been anyone other than Trump b/c the DOJ knew there'd be a backlash.
Garland believed that recovering classified documents from Trump was worth the cost in terms of right-wing backlash, shrieking, screams for him to be fired or shot or stoned, that would inevitably result after Trump started squealing like a stuck pig because he wasn't allowed to steal documents with state secrets and keep them at his house. Where Trump is currently trying to hire 90+ immigrants (perhaps including some from Russia or North Korea or Saudi Arabia?)
Garland isn't a cowboy. So I believe there was a good reason the documents were reclaimed. And that, given Garland's cautious, by-the-book approach, he may have waited too long.
But "the damage is already" done is not a good justification for leaving classified documents in the custody of the dude who did the damage. For him to use as leverage if, indeed, he is ultimately accused of seditious conspiracy.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact
Not true. The judge doesn't say sock drawer.....U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.
But Jackson's ruling along with the Justice Department's arguments that preceded it made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.
"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.
Hi, I am the smart alek that posts alot of stuff that I think is funny with an occasional thoughtful or serious remark. If my post appears to be outlandish or a hilariously bad take- it was probably meant to be that way.. as was the case with this post about Trumps undie drawer.
I try to note them with an emoji that reflects that..
Glad you are here and look forward to reading your posts!
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.
that's not entirely accurate either as Nara was not on Clinton side. The previous case is neither a slam dunk for the defense or something that the prosecution can wave away and dismiss.Sam Lowry said:
That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Clinton wasn't a party, but to the extent that he had an interest it was aligned with NARA's. The main point was that NARA couldn't be forced to act. In this case they've chosen to act against Trump.4th and Inches said:that's not entirely accurate either as Nara was not on Clinton side. The previous case is neither a slam dunk for the defense or something that the prosecution can wave away and dismiss.Sam Lowry said:
That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.
must be nice that an archivist can choose to not follow PRA but Trump cant..Sam Lowry said:Clinton wasn't a party, but to the extent that he had an interest it was aligned with NARA's. The main point was that NARA couldn't be forced to act. In this case they've chosen to act against Trump.4th and Inches said:that's not entirely accurate either as Nara was not on Clinton side. The previous case is neither a slam dunk for the defense or something that the prosecution can wave away and dismiss.Sam Lowry said:
That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.
It was a cover. They took privilaged files and looked at them and then said oops. They took his passport and looked at where he has been and said oops. The wrote the warrant scope wide with little parameters fishing for information.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
The law requires different things of the archivist and the president.4th and Inches said:must be nice that an archivist can choose to not follow PRA but Trump cant..Sam Lowry said:Clinton wasn't a party, but to the extent that he had an interest it was aligned with NARA's. The main point was that NARA couldn't be forced to act. In this case they've chosen to act against Trump.4th and Inches said:that's not entirely accurate either as Nara was not on Clinton side. The previous case is neither a slam dunk for the defense or something that the prosecution can wave away and dismiss.Sam Lowry said:
That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.
It was a cover. They took privilaged files and looked at them and then said oops. They took his passport and looked at where he has been and said oops. The wrote the warrant scope wide with little parameters fishing for information.
According to you Sam, Trump has no rights. They can do what they want and it is all ok. Every t crossed and i dotted, very authoritarian. I hesitate to go to the Nazi Party route because it will be considered sensationalizing, but they did the same and we have excellent records of it because the crossed the t's and dotted the i's. Kept immaculate records of stuff they considered legal and done by the book.Sam Lowry said:The law requires different things of the archivist and the president.4th and Inches said:must be nice that an archivist can choose to not follow PRA but Trump cant..Sam Lowry said:Clinton wasn't a party, but to the extent that he had an interest it was aligned with NARA's. The main point was that NARA couldn't be forced to act. In this case they've chosen to act against Trump.4th and Inches said:that's not entirely accurate either as Nara was not on Clinton side. The previous case is neither a slam dunk for the defense or something that the prosecution can wave away and dismiss.Sam Lowry said:
That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.
It was a cover. They took privilaged files and looked at them and then said oops. They took his passport and looked at where he has been and said oops. The wrote the warrant scope wide with little parameters fishing for information.
That is the problem with the Espionage Act that people have been screaming about, some conservatives and some liberals, since 1917. It gives the Government almost unlimited power and is almost indefensible if the spot light is on you, if politicized it is quite the weapon.
He is not a sane manDoc Holliday said:JUST IN - FBI raids Trump's home Mar-A-Lago in Florida. pic.twitter.com/7dK0bhRtLr
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) August 8, 2022
Waco1947 ,la
Yeah, T has rights but he abused them and broke the law.RMF5630 said:According to you Sam, Trump has no rights. They can do what they want and it is all ok. Every t crossed and i dotted, very authoritarian. I hesitate to go to the Nazi Party route because it will be considered sensationalizing, but they did the same and we have excellent records of it because the crossed the t's and dotted the i's. Kept immaculate records of stuff they considered legal and done by the book.Sam Lowry said:The law requires different things of the archivist and the president.4th and Inches said:must be nice that an archivist can choose to not follow PRA but Trump cant..Sam Lowry said:Clinton wasn't a party, but to the extent that he had an interest it was aligned with NARA's. The main point was that NARA couldn't be forced to act. In this case they've chosen to act against Trump.4th and Inches said:that's not entirely accurate either as Nara was not on Clinton side. The previous case is neither a slam dunk for the defense or something that the prosecution can wave away and dismiss.Sam Lowry said:
That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.
It was a cover. They took privilaged files and looked at them and then said oops. They took his passport and looked at where he has been and said oops. The wrote the warrant scope wide with little parameters fishing for information.
That is the problem with the Espionage Act that people have been screaming about, some conservatives and some liberals, since 1917. It gives the Government almost unlimited power and is almost indefensible if the spot light is on you, if politicized it is quite the weapon.
Waco1947 ,la
did he? Link to conviction..Waco1947 said:Yeah, T has rights but he abused them and broke the law.RMF5630 said:According to you Sam, Trump has no rights. They can do what they want and it is all ok. Every t crossed and i dotted, very authoritarian. I hesitate to go to the Nazi Party route because it will be considered sensationalizing, but they did the same and we have excellent records of it because the crossed the t's and dotted the i's. Kept immaculate records of stuff they considered legal and done by the book.Sam Lowry said:The law requires different things of the archivist and the president.4th and Inches said:must be nice that an archivist can choose to not follow PRA but Trump cant..Sam Lowry said:Clinton wasn't a party, but to the extent that he had an interest it was aligned with NARA's. The main point was that NARA couldn't be forced to act. In this case they've chosen to act against Trump.4th and Inches said:that's not entirely accurate either as Nara was not on Clinton side. The previous case is neither a slam dunk for the defense or something that the prosecution can wave away and dismiss.Sam Lowry said:
That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.
It was a cover. They took privilaged files and looked at them and then said oops. They took his passport and looked at where he has been and said oops. The wrote the warrant scope wide with little parameters fishing for information.
That is the problem with the Espionage Act that people have been screaming about, some conservatives and some liberals, since 1917. It gives the Government almost unlimited power and is almost indefensible if the spot light is on you, if politicized it is quite the weapon.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
I was born in a Crossfire Hurricane
Peter Strzok making out with Lisa Paige
'Cuz it's all right now
Fraud is a Gas
'Cuz it's all right
Orange Man Bad is a
Gas Gas Gas...........
- KKM
{ sipping coffee }
Peter Strzok making out with Lisa Paige
'Cuz it's all right now
Fraud is a Gas
'Cuz it's all right
Orange Man Bad is a
Gas Gas Gas...........
- KKM
{ sipping coffee }
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
What charges? Come on, what has he been convicted of? What trial has Trump had that he was guilty? You just saying that does not make it real.Waco1947 said:Yeah, T has rights but he abused them and broke the law.RMF5630 said:According to you Sam, Trump has no rights. They can do what they want and it is all ok. Every t crossed and i dotted, very authoritarian. I hesitate to go to the Nazi Party route because it will be considered sensationalizing, but they did the same and we have excellent records of it because the crossed the t's and dotted the i's. Kept immaculate records of stuff they considered legal and done by the book.Sam Lowry said:The law requires different things of the archivist and the president.4th and Inches said:must be nice that an archivist can choose to not follow PRA but Trump cant..Sam Lowry said:Clinton wasn't a party, but to the extent that he had an interest it was aligned with NARA's. The main point was that NARA couldn't be forced to act. In this case they've chosen to act against Trump.4th and Inches said:that's not entirely accurate either as Nara was not on Clinton side. The previous case is neither a slam dunk for the defense or something that the prosecution can wave away and dismiss.Sam Lowry said:
That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.
It was a cover. They took privilaged files and looked at them and then said oops. They took his passport and looked at where he has been and said oops. The wrote the warrant scope wide with little parameters fishing for information.
That is the problem with the Espionage Act that people have been screaming about, some conservatives and some liberals, since 1917. It gives the Government almost unlimited power and is almost indefensible if the spot light is on you, if politicized it is quite the weapon.
No charges and maybe none ever.RMF5630 said:What charges? Come on, what has he been convicted of? What trial has Trump had that he was guilty? You just saying that does not make it real.Waco1947 said:Yeah, T has rights but he abused them and broke the law.RMF5630 said:According to you Sam, Trump has no rights. They can do what they want and it is all ok. Every t crossed and i dotted, very authoritarian. I hesitate to go to the Nazi Party route because it will be considered sensationalizing, but they did the same and we have excellent records of it because the crossed the t's and dotted the i's. Kept immaculate records of stuff they considered legal and done by the book.Sam Lowry said:The law requires different things of the archivist and the president.4th and Inches said:must be nice that an archivist can choose to not follow PRA but Trump cant..Sam Lowry said:Clinton wasn't a party, but to the extent that he had an interest it was aligned with NARA's. The main point was that NARA couldn't be forced to act. In this case they've chosen to act against Trump.4th and Inches said:that's not entirely accurate either as Nara was not on Clinton side. The previous case is neither a slam dunk for the defense or something that the prosecution can wave away and dismiss.Sam Lowry said:
That decision was narrower than it's being made to sound. It isn't going to help Trump much without NARA on his side.
It was a cover. They took privilaged files and looked at them and then said oops. They took his passport and looked at where he has been and said oops. The wrote the warrant scope wide with little parameters fishing for information.
That is the problem with the Espionage Act that people have been screaming about, some conservatives and some liberals, since 1917. It gives the Government almost unlimited power and is almost indefensible if the spot light is on you, if politicized it is quite the weapon.