4th and Inches said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Golem said:

---

POTUS has plenary power over ALL classification. That means he has been granted in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power, the right to determine what is and is not classified.

There is quite literally no way anything in his home was classified if he says it wasn't.

---

Unless it was.

---

Sam, using the same standard Comey explained for Hillary being there was no intent so he couldn't charge. Wouldn't Trump believing he declassified everything show he had no intent to take classified docs? Without intent, according to Comey, there is no case. Trump clearly thought everything was declassified.

---

yep

Basically, this is a PRA arguement.

Remember, former presidents get an office, staff, security, hold security clearance, office/storage is set up to hold classified documents. This is the standard. GSA packed and moved that stuff. Trump didnt take anything.

GSA said it was his stuff and he was allowed to have it. NARA disagreed. This is where we are..

---

You simply do not employ the FBI to raid the house of a former president of the United States under such a set of circumstances.

It is completely ludicrous to pretend otherwise .

But the damage has been done , Dems now have to invent a narrative 'justifying' such a recklessly stupid action …..or look like dangerous idiots to those in the country who are not rabid Trump haters .

I've been waiting for Prof. Goldsmith's thoughts on the Mar-a-Lago search. There's no one whose opinions on such a matter I value more. He's not yet drawing firm conclusions but provides a roadmap for thinking things through as crucial information comes to light. Fair & balanced. https://t.co/9tyJJOtEtl

— Robert P. George🇻🇦🇺🇸🪕 (@McCormickProf) August 15, 2022

The dispute may be about records declassed under Trump's blanket XO. Because they were not declassed under normal protocols, DOJ could, as a negotiating position, consider them still classified. How convenient it would be if the documents in question related to Russiagate, which Trump would want to retain in order to have the ability to document the hoax, and which DOJ would want back to prevent same.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-records-negotiator-warns-russigate-cover-up

If deemed by a court to still be classified, making public any information contained in those documents a violation of the Espionage Act could be a prosecutable offense, even if the substance of the information was publicly known. Not just revealing the document. Even making a statement about the subject material.

EX about the "over-classification" aspect: The support flights which carry US Diplomatic pouches around the world are USAF military aircraft. C-141s in the old days, presumably C-17s today. US personnel from the embassy have to actually spend the night ON the aircraft wherever it overnights. Very uncomfortable sleeping it is on a C-141 in a tropical climate, or in a country in the Sahara Desert, I can assure you. The cable traffic between WDC and the stations about the crew and the dates of travel and the arrival times is all classified. Now, the plane is of course visible to the public. And the flight plan filed with civilian authorities around the world is unclassified. And of course the pilots and crews wear jumpsuits with their names embroidered on them, hand in their passports to immigration controls and even when checking in at the local hotel. But if you take home that classified cable with the arrival time on it, or technically even jot down the name of the pilot and the arrival time on a blank piece of paper and take it with you.....you have just violated the Espionage Act. technically.

So the opportunities for political gamesmanship here are legion.
And FBI is trying to conduct a rodeo on it.
Gonna turn into a goat roping, though.

4th and Inches said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Golem said:

---

POTUS has plenary power over ALL classification. That means he has been granted in absolute terms, with no review of or limitations upon the exercise of that power, the right to determine what is and is not classified.

There is quite literally no way anything in his home was classified if he says it wasn't.

---

Unless it was.

---

Sam, using the same standard Comey explained for Hillary being there was no intent so he couldn't charge. Wouldn't Trump believing he declassified everything show he had no intent to take classified docs? Without intent, according to Comey, there is no case. Trump clearly thought everything was declassified.

---

yep

Basically, this is a PRA arguement.

Remember, former presidents get an office, staff, security, hold security clearance, office/storage is set up to hold classified documents. This is the standard. GSA packed and moved that stuff. Trump didnt take anything.

GSA said it was his stuff and he was allowed to have it. NARA disagreed. This is where we are..

---

Yup, this is political. It is either backfiring on the Dems or they want Trump to run. But, this is all be design. It just didn't organically come to a head 3 months before the midterms. I suspect we will go into an investgatory phase again in 23 with results ready during the summer of 24 cumulating after Labor Day 24.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Obamas order #13526 specifically exempts POTUS from declassification protocols

---

Which section of the order is that?

---

having fun reading the whole thing.

section 4.4 is cool.. grants past presidents access to classified material and waives need to know requirement.

---

I already did, that's why I asked. The only relevant section I found was 3.7, which deals with "the development of effective, transparent, and standard declassification work processes, training, and quality assurance measures." If anything it seems contrary to what you're claiming.

---

3.5 has a few things. I presented the information as food for thought, not particularly claiming anything. I know there are some smart people on here who can give me a sound opinion

The best understanding comes from alternative points of view.

I still lean toward You trying to pigeon hole the president into something he doesnt have to be in.. my buddy who is a former AUSA said POTUS can do what he wants, he is the maker of executive policy and EOs dont apply to him. Same for the rules of the executive branch under POTUS.

Leads us back in to Egan- POTUS ability to classify and control the flow of national security information arises from the constitutional investment of power in the head of the executive branch. Constitution overrides everything..

---

The key point of Navy v. Egan is that the president's authority arises from the Constitution apart from any grant by Congress. It doesn't mean the power is absolute or that it can't be limited by the other branches. How do we know this? Because the Court said so:

Quote:

---

Unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs.

---

So it's certainly true that the president has inherent authority, but to claim absolute authority is to overread a narrow decision.

---

This brings up the separation of powers issue. Can the courts even make a judgement on the proper procedures the POTUS must respect in order to declassify a document? I don't think anyone here really believes Trump seriously considered whether a document should be declassified . He just took them wherever he wanted.

But if you're a fed court, can you really tell the chief executive what procedures he must follow in order to declassify documents?

** my question doesn't touch on the storage question

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Obamas order #13526 specifically exempts POTUS from declassification protocols

---

Which section of the order is that?

---

having fun reading the whole thing.

section 4.4 is cool.. grants past presidents access to classified material and waives need to know requirement.

---

I already did, that's why I asked. The only relevant section I found was 3.7, which deals with "the development of effective, transparent, and standard declassification work processes, training, and quality assurance measures." If anything it seems contrary to what you're claiming.

---

3.5 has a few things. I presented the information as food for thought, not particularly claiming anything. I know there are some smart people on here who can give me a sound opinion

The best understanding comes from alternative points of view.

I still lean toward You trying to pigeon hole the president into something he doesnt have to be in.. my buddy who is a former AUSA said POTUS can do what he wants, he is the maker of executive policy and EOs dont apply to him. Same for the rules of the executive branch under POTUS.

Leads us back in to Egan- POTUS ability to classify and control the flow of national security information arises from the constitutional investment of power in the head of the executive branch. Constitution overrides everything..

---

The key point of Navy v. Egan is that the president's authority arises from the Constitution apart from any grant by Congress. It doesn't mean the power is absolute or that it can't be limited by the other branches. How do we know this? Because the Court said so:

Quote:

---

Unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs.

---

So it's certainly true that the president has inherent authority, but to claim absolute authority is to overread a narrow decision.

---

This brings up the separation of powers issue. Can the courts even make a judgement on the proper procedures the POTUS must respect in order to declassify a document? I don't think anyone here really believes Trump seriously considered whether a document should be declassified . He just took them wherever he wanted.

But if you're a fed court, can you really tell the chief executive what procedures he must follow in order to declassify documents?

** my question doesn't touch on the storage question

---

there are definitely some check and balance versus separation of powers conversations that need to be had. But unless Congress said something up specifically, there is no limitation on the chief executive of the executive branch that is set administratively by rule by somebody under the chief executive of the executive branch. There is no executive action that limits the presidents constitutional powers

Biden DOJ thinks otherwise

whiterock said:

---

The dispute may be about records declassed under Trump's blanket XO. Because they were not declassed under normal protocols, DOJ could, as a negotiating position, consider them still classified. How convenient it would be if the documents in question related to Russiagate, which Trump would want to retain in order to have the ability to document the hoax, and which DOJ would want back to

---

This is really about the FBI covering their ass over Russiagate than it is going after Trump.

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Obamas order #13526 specifically exempts POTUS from declassification protocols

---

Which section of the order is that?

---

having fun reading the whole thing.

section 4.4 is cool.. grants past presidents access to classified material and waives need to know requirement.

---

I already did, that's why I asked. The only relevant section I found was 3.7, which deals with "the development of effective, transparent, and standard declassification work processes, training, and quality assurance measures." If anything it seems contrary to what you're claiming.

---

3.5 has a few things. I presented the information as food for thought, not particularly claiming anything. I know there are some smart people on here who can give me a sound opinion

The best understanding comes from alternative points of view.

I still lean toward You trying to pigeon hole the president into something he doesnt have to be in.. my buddy who is a former AUSA said POTUS can do what he wants, he is the maker of executive policy and EOs dont apply to him. Same for the rules of the executive branch under POTUS.

Leads us back in to Egan- POTUS ability to classify and control the flow of national security information arises from the constitutional investment of power in the head of the executive branch. Constitution overrides everything..

---

The key point of Navy v. Egan is that the president's authority arises from the Constitution apart from any grant by Congress. It doesn't mean the power is absolute or that it can't be limited by the other branches. How do we know this? Because the Court said so:

Quote:

---

Unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs.

---

So it's certainly true that the president has inherent authority, but to claim absolute authority is to overread a narrow decision.

---

This brings up the separation of powers issue. Can the courts even make a judgement on the proper procedures the POTUS must respect in order to declassify a document? I don't think anyone here really believes Trump seriously considered whether a document should be declassified . He just took them wherever he wanted.

But if you're a fed court, can you really tell the chief executive what procedures he must follow in order to declassify documents?

** my question doesn't touch on the storage question

---

If nothing else, he has to follow the relevant executive orders. He could have changed them, but he didn't. Obama's 2009 order is the one that currently applies. He could argue that he had inherent power to declassify without following the process, but then there is the matter of proof. Regardless of what he could do, the real question is what he did do. If he only "declassified" the documents by waving his hand and sprinkling pretend fairy dust over them in the privacy of his office, then where's the proof?

Egan also supports the rule that Congress can legislate in this area, which means that courts can adjudicate disputes. I posted an Atlantic article the other day showing that nuclear secrets are governed by federal statute and cannot be declassified at will.

Rawhide said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

well hopefully it doesnt lead to someone shooting at the FBI. or storming our capitol and killing police officers.

---

4 officers who were there committed suicide well after the Riot at the Capital.

Quote:

---

NPR

U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who engaged with pro-Trump rioters during the Jan. 6 insurrection, died of natural causes the day after the attack, Washington, D.C.'s chief medical examiner announced Monday.

Sicknick died after suffering strokes, the Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Francisco Diaz, said in a report. In an interview, Diaz told The Washington Post, which first reported on the determination, that Sicknick suffered two strokes.

Sicknick, 42, was sprayed with a chemical substance outside the Capitol at around 2:20 p.m. ET on Jan. 6, the report said.

He did not suffer an allergic reaction to the chemical irritants dispensed by rioters, Diaz told the Post, nor was there evidence of internal or external injuries.

At approximately 10 p.m., Sicknick collapsed at the Capitol and was transported to a local hospital. He died nearly 24 hours later.

---

Did the stress from the event probably have a very bad affect on officer Sicknick, more than likely it did, but it is disingenuous to say "people killed police officers" during the riot, they didn't.

No police officers were killed during the riots at the Capital. Four people/rioters died during the riots, one person was actually "killed" meaning someone intentionally killed her. She was shot dead by a Capital police officer.

---

So, are you finally admitting it was a riot and not an insurrection?

---

Quote:

---

Really those people were idiots, the majority of them anyway. Then of course there were some true believers too.

There was never any chance whatsoever for the election to be overturned. These folks must have been on an IV drip from the most far right web sites and internet programs to believe there was any chance of such. And, they listened to Trump, who directed Pence to overturn the election. When that didn't happen they went ballistic.

Now the Government is painstakingly reviewing, video, security cameras, and interviews, to one by one put these people under arrest. Their jobs have been lost, they face real prison time, for nothing. Their lives are in shambles. Their notion of an election overturn was just a mirage from the get go, and they bought it hook line and sinker.

---

This is the closest I think I came to calling it an insurrection, there were certainly people there that "thought" they could overturn an election. To deny there were those that thought they were changing an election and were going to keep Trump as president would be wrong for me to say. Did they have any chance? Was it a well organized effort? No chance, I clearly said that from the beginning. However, there were some true believers in the crowd, "they" thought they were going to chance the election and keep Trump as president. They were that deluded.

I wouldn't be surprised:

1) Trump is indicted, dems slow walk it so that nothing concludes by the time the '24 voting season gets here. This would give dems a chance to create campaign ads about the Republican candidate being under indictment'

or

2) Trump is indicted, things move quickly. Trump is found guilty in 95% woke liberal DC, he appeals all the way to the Surpreme Court. SCOTUS finds in his favor. The wacko woke liberals burn the country down.

or

3) Trump is not indicted. The wacko liberals will burn the country down

or

4) Trump is found not guilty. The wacko liberals will burn the country down


In the past, When liberals went mad, your average conservative would roll their eyes, go to work so they can pay the bills and just avoid areas where wacko liberals were trashing cities, killing people, looting businesses and setting private property on fire. This day and age though, I have a feeling that conservatives have had enough and will fight back, sparking a new civil war.

Honeslty though, there's a civil war now, the libs have been fighting since at least November 2016; Republicans haven't caught on yet though.

Rawhide said:

---

I wouldn't be surprised:

1) Trump is indicted, dems slow walk it so that nothing concludes by the time the '24 voting season gets here. This would give dems a chance to create campaign ads about the Republican candidate being under indictment'

or

2) Trump is indicted, things move quickly. Trump is found guilty in 95% woke liberal DC, he appeals all the way to the Surpreme Court. SCOTUS finds in his favor. The wacko woke liberals burn the country down.

or

3) Trump is not indicted. The wacko liberals will burn the country down

or

4) Trump is found not guilty. The wacko liberals will burn the country down


In the past, When liberals went mad, your average conservative would roll their eyes, go to work so they can pay the bills and just avoid areas where wacko liberals were trashing cities, killing people, looting businesses and setting private property on fire. This day and age though, I have a feeling that conservatives have had enough and will fight back, sparking a new civil war.

Honeslty though, there's a civil war now, the libs have been fighting since at least November 2016; Republicans haven't caught on yet though.

---

Read your history. J6 = Reichstag Fire.

Everything is flowing from that.

Rawhide said:

---

In the past, When liberals went mad, your average conservative would roll their eyes, go to work so they can pay the bills and just avoid areas where wacko liberals were trashing cities, killing people, looting businesses and setting private property on fire. This day and age though, I have a feeling that conservatives have had enough and will fight back, sparking a new civil war.

Honeslty though, there's a civil war now, the libs have been fighting since at least November 2016; Republicans haven't caught on yet though.

---

Biden's handlers aren't ignorant .

They know the masses care far more about the cost of food and fuel than the implications of Dem misuse of the FBI....especially if the target is an obnoxious billionaire like Donald Trump .

Hell , most voters only dimly comprehend what the DOJ even represents, or the chain of command from the POTUS to the AG to the FBI director .

But the price of a Wendy's combo meal ; the cost to fill up their SUV ? .

There people know EXACTLY what's going on and they are pissed off.

Dems are going to 'magically' retain control of the house and senate this November . Count on it .

If the people finally begin fighting back against such blatant corrosion of our democracy ....it will because they feel their personal situation is becoming hopeless .

Not because of the martyrdom of Donald Trump or some vague notion of legitimate government .

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Obamas order #13526 specifically exempts POTUS from declassification protocols

---

Which section of the order is that?

---

having fun reading the whole thing.

section 4.4 is cool.. grants past presidents access to classified material and waives need to know requirement.

---

I already did, that's why I asked. The only relevant section I found was 3.7, which deals with "the development of effective, transparent, and standard declassification work processes, training, and quality assurance measures." If anything it seems contrary to what you're claiming.

---

3.5 has a few things. I presented the information as food for thought, not particularly claiming anything. I know there are some smart people on here who can give me a sound opinion

The best understanding comes from alternative points of view.

I still lean toward You trying to pigeon hole the president into something he doesnt have to be in.. my buddy who is a former AUSA said POTUS can do what he wants, he is the maker of executive policy and EOs dont apply to him. Same for the rules of the executive branch under POTUS.

Leads us back in to Egan- POTUS ability to classify and control the flow of national security information arises from the constitutional investment of power in the head of the executive branch. Constitution overrides everything..

---

The key point of Navy v. Egan is that the president's authority arises from the Constitution apart from any grant by Congress. It doesn't mean the power is absolute or that it can't be limited by the other branches. How do we know this? Because the Court said so:

Quote:

---

Unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs.

---

So it's certainly true that the president has inherent authority, but to claim absolute authority is to overread a narrow decision.

---

This brings up the separation of powers issue. Can the courts even make a judgement on the proper procedures the POTUS must respect in order to declassify a document? I don't think anyone here really believes Trump seriously considered whether a document should be declassified . He just took them wherever he wanted.

But if you're a fed court, can you really tell the chief executive what procedures he must follow in order to declassify documents?

** my question doesn't touch on the storage question

---

The dispute is within the same branch: NARA is an executive agency.

Rawhide said:

---

I wouldn't be surprised:

1) Trump is indicted, dems slow walk it so that nothing concludes by the time the '24 voting season gets here. This would give dems a chance to create campaign ads about the Republican candidate being under indictment'

or

2) Trump is indicted, things move quickly. Trump is found guilty in 95% woke liberal DC, he appeals all the way to the Surpreme Court. SCOTUS finds in his favor. The wacko woke liberals burn the country down.

or

3) Trump is not indicted. The wacko liberals will burn the country down

or

4) Trump is found not guilty. The wacko liberals will burn the country down


In the past, When liberals went mad, your average conservative would roll their eyes, go to work so they can pay the bills and just avoid areas where wacko liberals were trashing cities, killing people, looting businesses and setting private property on fire. This day and age though, I have a feeling that conservatives have had enough and will fight back, sparking a new civil war.

Honeslty though, there's a civil war now, the libs have been fighting since at least November 2016; Republicans haven't caught on yet though.

---

1. That would be the normal timeline, not a slow walk. State misdemeanors don't move that quickly.

2. Lightspeed. Not a chance.

3. Vanishingly unprobable.

4. See #3.

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Obamas order #13526 specifically exempts POTUS from declassification protocols

---

Which section of the order is that?

---

having fun reading the whole thing.

section 4.4 is cool.. grants past presidents access to classified material and waives need to know requirement.

---

I already did, that's why I asked. The only relevant section I found was 3.7, which deals with "the development of effective, transparent, and standard declassification work processes, training, and quality assurance measures." If anything it seems contrary to what you're claiming.

---

3.5 has a few things. I presented the information as food for thought, not particularly claiming anything. I know there are some smart people on here who can give me a sound opinion

The best understanding comes from alternative points of view.

I still lean toward You trying to pigeon hole the president into something he doesnt have to be in.. my buddy who is a former AUSA said POTUS can do what he wants, he is the maker of executive policy and EOs dont apply to him. Same for the rules of the executive branch under POTUS.

Leads us back in to Egan- POTUS ability to classify and control the flow of national security information arises from the constitutional investment of power in the head of the executive branch. Constitution overrides everything..

---

The key point of Navy v. Egan is that the president's authority arises from the Constitution apart from any grant by Congress. It doesn't mean the power is absolute or that it can't be limited by the other branches. How do we know this? Because the Court said so:

Quote:

---

Unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs.

---

So it's certainly true that the president has inherent authority, but to claim absolute authority is to overread a narrow decision.

---

This brings up the separation of powers issue. Can the courts even make a judgement on the proper procedures the POTUS must respect in order to declassify a document? I don't think anyone here really believes Trump seriously considered whether a document should be declassified . He just took them wherever he wanted.

But if you're a fed court, can you really tell the chief executive what procedures he must follow in order to declassify documents?

** my question doesn't touch on the storage question

---

The dispute is within the same branch: NARA is an executive agency.

---

Note my asterisks. Trump v NARA is a storage/possession question. Declassification doesn't involve NARA

DOJ has requested the Affidavit stay sealed..

4th and Inches said:

---

DOJ has requested the Affidavit stay sealed..

---

Imagine that .

No railroading going on here .

Just like months of solitary confinement never happened to some of those charged in the Jan 6th stupidity .

FBI.. why you got to keep doing dumb sh..!

According to an FBI informant, the Michigan State Police allowed armed protesters into the Capitol in Lansing on April 30, 2020, at the specific request of the FBI

FBI took Trumps passport and other executive privilage and attorney client privilage stuff. They bucking for an illegal seizire ruling..

Did Trump have to surrender his PASSPORT ?

Just read this on several sites.

Good grief this simply can not be true .

How can anyone not under arrest have their PASSPORT taken away ?

Canada2017 said:

---

Did Trump have to surrender his PASSPORT ?

Just read this on several sites.

Good grief this simply can not be true .

---

just heard they are giving them back..

They were not surrendered

Trump: "What can I do to lower the temperature?"

Also Trump:

So Trump team now publicizing this email, which shows:

1) DOJ obtained three passports (two expired, not one, as Trump said) and alerted Trump lawyers
2) They were recovered by a filter team, which weeds out privileged info.
3) Trump publicized this after DOJ offered them back pic.twitter.com/lz8wneIQ0a

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 15, 2022

Just checking in to see democracy has been saved and the overdue books have been returned to the library?

HuMcK said:

---

Trump: "What can I do to lower the temperature?"

Also Trump:

So Trump team now publicizing this email, which shows:

1) DOJ obtained three passports (two expired, not one, as Trump said) and alerted Trump lawyers
2) They were recovered by a filter team, which weeds out privileged info.
3) Trump publicized this after DOJ offered them back pic.twitter.com/lz8wneIQ0a

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 15, 2022

---

you would think after 6-9 hours on site, they would have had time to decide his passport was outside the scope of the warrant and never should have been taken

I commend them for doing the right thing by returning it.

4th and Inches said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Did Trump have to surrender his PASSPORT ?

Just read this on several sites.

Good grief this simply can not be true .

---

just heard they are giving them back..

They were not surrendered

---

Not an attorney ( obviously ) ....so I am not clear.


But can someone be forced to surrender their passport when they are not under a criminal indictment ?

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

Garland deliberated for weeks over whether to approve the application for a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, sources tell WSJ..

Took him weeks to decide to go get those classified nuke documents and CIA spy payroll data!

Baco peddling and covering sounds worse than just rolling with it!

DOJ admits they over collected evidence.. that should play well to a jury if needed.

DOJ is panicking. First, Garland claimed the warrant was narrow. That was a lie. Then Garland claimed DOJ would only speak through court filings. That was a lie, as these leaks prove. DOJ claimed the raid was URGENT! Also a lie, since Garland piddled around for weeks beforehand.

Clown shown..

4th and Inches said:

---

DOJ admits they over collected evidence.. that should play well to a jury if needed.

DOJ is panicking. First, Garland claimed the warrant was narrow. That was a lie. Then Garland claimed DOJ would only speak through court filings. That was a lie, as these leaks prove. DOJ claimed the raid was URGENT! Also a lie, since Garland piddled around for weeks beforehand.

Clown shown..

---

Biden's DOJ wants Trump in prison and needs every scrap of potential evidence to discover a 'crime' .

DOJ is not remotely panicking as Biden's handlers are pleased with the results so far .

Definitely a clown show......a political clown show ...but at least 40% of the American people don't have the slightest understanding of the precedents being set or the dangers involved .

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

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.

ALSO OLDBEAR: Lookit this dumbayss what reads the Att-lantic and cawls hisself a consuhrvative!!!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

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.

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.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

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.

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.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

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.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DOJ admits they over collected evidence.. that should play well to a jury if needed.

DOJ is panicking. First, Garland claimed the warrant was narrow. That was a lie. Then Garland claimed DOJ would only speak through court filings. That was a lie, as these leaks prove. DOJ claimed the raid was URGENT! Also a lie, since Garland piddled around for weeks beforehand.

Clown shown..

---

Not so much a clown show, as a fishing expedition.

One day soon we will see if what they caught is all throwbacks, or if they caught any keepers.

Bonus fishing points for rifling through Melania's clothing.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DOJ admits they over collected evidence.. that should play well to a jury if needed.

DOJ is panicking. First, Garland claimed the warrant was narrow. That was a lie. Then Garland claimed DOJ would only speak through court filings. That was a lie, as these leaks prove. DOJ claimed the raid was URGENT! Also a lie, since Garland piddled around for weeks beforehand.

Clown shown..

---

Not so much a clown show, as a fishing expedition.

One day soon we will see if what they caught is all throwbacks, or if they caught any keepers.

Bonus fishing points for rifling through Melania's clothing.

---

They will find 'something'....anything .

Otherwise the FBI and DOJ look like fools.

Much like an impeachment hearing over a phone call......a set of ridiculous charges are on the way .

Not going to get any convictions of course...but they don't have to .




Dems are seriously clever .

They are going to make the election about Trump still again ....instead of Biden's horrible performance.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

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.

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.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

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.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam quoting the Atlantic.

But he wants us to count him as 'conservative'

---

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.

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.

---

I don't ever remember you making a conservative case for anything. Kevin Williamson says it well in his latest column for National Review:

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.

---

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.