# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  FBI 'raided' Mar-a-Lago

## donnay

*Trump says FBI 'raided' Mar-a-Lago*
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ded-mar-a-lago

----------


## tod evans

Bet that's a first.

Even the Clintons weren't raided after Billery left office.

----------


## WisconsinLiberty

"Nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before. After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate. It is prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the Justice System, and an attack by Radical Left Democrats who desperately dont want me to run for President in 2024.

Trump added: The political persecution of President Donald J. Trump has been going on for years, with the now fully debunked Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, Impeachment Hoax #1, Impeachment Hoax #2, and so much more, it just never ends. It is political targeting at the highest level!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

The globalist left establishment has no qualms about turning the US into another Ukraine, Syria, Sri Lanka or any other devastated nation.

----------


## kahless

This dispute about Trump taking records to Mar-a-Lago has been going on a long time.  All they had to do is send the records back.  How many times do you have to tell someone to send back records they should not have taken offsite in the first place.

Of course you won't hear that from Fox News or any of the professional lying pundits on the right that have their heads so far up Trump's behind.  They will use this to generate sympathy support for Trump and who knows maybe Trump did not send the records back for this very purpose.  He can use this at his rallies for years to come.

----------


## 69360

What were they looking for? Will the search warrant be made public? The FBI can't just go fishing, the warrant needs to specify what they are looking for. I don't like Trump much but he has legal rights.

----------


## kahless

> What were they looking for? Will the search warrant be made public? The FBI can't just go fishing, the warrant needs to specify what they are looking for. I don't like Trump much but he has legal rights.


They found the 15 boxes of records they should not have taken from the White House and were told to send back repeatedly for months.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

> This dispute about Trump taking records to Mar-a-Lago has been going on a long time.  All they had to do is send the records back.  How many times do you have to tell someone to send back records they should not have taken offsite in the first place.
> 
> Of course you won't hear that from Fox News or any of the professional lying pundits on the right that have their heads so far up Trump's behind.  They will use this to generate sympathy support for Trump and who knows maybe Trump did not send the records back for this very purpose.  He can use this at his rallies for years to come.


I interpret what you say as there is no good choice in politics. Nothing can be done to fix anything. Nothing can be done correctly and everything a politician does is wrong. Doesn't matter if you choose heads or tail it is the same coin.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The globalist left establishment has no qualms about turning the US into another Ukraine, Syria, Sri Lanka or any other devastated nation.


Doing a good job of it.

Trump will be in prison within 60 days I reckon.

----------


## WisconsinLiberty

TimCast Live:

Donald Trump raid.
https://youtu.be/z8PEXSCVrnE

----------


## dannno

> They found the 15 boxes of records they should not have taken from the White House and were told to send back repeatedly for months.


Wrong. 




> The National Archives said presidential records in 15 boxes obtained from Mar-a-Lago *earlier this year* were marked as classified national security information.


Also you are assuming that anything the media says Trump did, he did, and that if he did it, that it would be illegal. He probably didn't do it, and if he did then it probably isn't illegal.

They lie about everything related to Trump. It is amazing you still trust the fake news.

----------


## WisconsinLiberty

The FBI broke into Trumps private safe. Whats up with that?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> They lie about everything related to Trump.


I miss when this place used to hate weaponized FBI

----------


## Dr.3D

The opposition is getting desperate.

----------


## kahless

> I interpret what you say as there is no good choice in politics. Nothing can be done to fix anything. Nothing can be done correctly and everything a politician does is wrong. Doesn't matter if you choose heads or tail it is the same coin.


I have been saying the same thing for years here that we need outsiders.  People that came from nothing to create an actual alt-news media, alt-entertainment and run for office.  All to compete and beat the establishment.

The Ron Paul revolution back in 2007-2008 was impressive.  Surely there are those of that stripe that can come together again for that purpose.   Otherwise it is basically what you described.  




> Doing a good job of it.
> 
> Trump will be in prison within 60 days I reckon.


I think you mean in two more weeks.  If you buy more pillows maybe there is a chance you can stop it.

----------


## devil21

Don't forget to donate $100 to his new legal defense fund.  The fundraising emails are being drafted as we speak.

----------


## kahless

> Don't forget to donate $100 to his new legal defense fund.  The fundraising emails are being drafted as we speak.


Sadly, poor old people and low IQ with limited funds giving their money to a Billionaire with plenty of Billionaire friends.

What is worse is if they did not "click here",  to the effect "then you support Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats".  The "click here" was auto pay.  The poor folks ended up having their accounts drained over a year after months of recurring donations since the campaign was unresponsive to stop it.

Disgusting and evil.

----------


## Working Poor

Drama and more drama being created everyday don't forget this is theater.  I wonder when they will start exchanging fire?

----------


## James_Madison_Lives

Rest of the world in shock. This must be El Salvador right? Congo?


*Trump says FBI raided his Florida home, broke into his safe*Former President Donald Trump said FBI agents raided his Mar-a-Lago estate on Monday and broke into his safe, coming amid a U.S. Justice Department investigation of Trump's removal of official presidential records to the Palm Beach, Florida, club.
 www.reuters.com

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I interpret what you say as there is no good choice in politics. Nothing can be done to fix anything. Nothing can be done correctly and everything a politician does is wrong. Doesn't matter if you choose heads or tail it is the same coin.


If nothing matters then we might as well do what we want to do. 

I'm gonna vote for Trump, personally speaking. 

Everyone just do what you want to do because it doesn't matter.

Also DeSantis is being groomed by the establishment to replace Trump, even though Trump works for the establishment, even though the establishment raids Trump's house.

Hopefully it is clear now.

----------


## Brian4Liberty



----------


## devil21

> Sadly, poor old people and low IQ with limited funds giving their money to a Billionaire with plenty of Billionaire friends.
> 
> What is worse is if they did not "click here",  to the effect "then you support Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats".  The "click here" was auto pay.  The poor folks ended up having their accounts drained over a year after months of recurring donations since the campaign was unresponsive to stop it.
> 
> Disgusting and evil.


Yep and just in time to keep that money from going to actual conservative mid-term election candidates all around the country, while Dem bundlers dump billions of laundered .gov money into Dem coffers.  Trump has been an excellent sponge for keeping cash out of real candidate's accounts.

----------


## Anti Globalist

They must be looking for that super secret evidence that Trump has that shows that he won the election and that the Democrats were responsible for Jan 6th and Trump didn't do an insurrection.  They must have figured that if they can find it in Mar-a-Lago Trump will have nothing by the 2024 general election.

----------


## Anti Globalist

Hillary does seem like the likely culprit behind that.

----------


## devil21

> They must be looking for that super secret evidence that Trump has that shows that he won the election and that the Democrats were responsible for Jan 6th and Trump didn't do an insurrection.  They must have figured that if they can find it in Mar-a-Lago Trump will have nothing by the 2024 general election.


Joke's on them!  Mike Lindell has it and he'll let you see it in two weeks if you buy a pillow.

----------


## ClaytonB

> I miss when this place used to hate weaponized FBI

----------


## Matt Collins

Will Governor DeSantis send in the State Guard to evict the feds and protect Trump?

----------


## 69360

Not likely.

----------


## Anti Globalist

Considering Trump is setting up DeSantis to be the nominee for 2024, I'd wager he will be protecting Trump.

----------


## vita3

No

----------


## vita3

Who was judge that signed off on this?

----------


## Marenco

The FBI along with the CIA should be splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds

----------


## Brian4Liberty



----------


## Anti Federalist

>

----------


## TheTexan

> This is the way:
> 
> https://twitter.com/AnthonySabatini/...05568207196160


Beautiful, delicious division.  Trump is the gift that keeps on giving

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Seems to me that if Desantis was everything I'm told he is, he wouldn't be preparing to run for president of the U.S.  He'd be running for President of Florida.


Who said anything about DeSantis?  JFC ...

And In any case, I haven't been told anything at all about him that makes me think he'd rather be POFL instead of POTUS.

If anything, I would expect the opposite is the case. But so what? If he can't or won't get with the program, then to hell with him, too.

I'm just going to appreciate the fact that a sitting state rep - one with whom I quite probably vehemently disagree, over a number of other things - is strongly advocating _exactly_ the right sort of stance with regard to the feds (and I'm going to do it without trying to find something else to piss and moan about).

----------


## acptulsa

> Who said anything about DeSantis?  JFC ...


Sorry.  Somehow I forgot that it was possible to mention Florida and _not_ say his name.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Who said anything about DeSantis?  JFC ...
> 
> And In any case, I haven't been told anything at all about him that makes me think he'd rather be POFL instead of POTUS.
> 
> If anything, I would expect the opposite is the case. But so what? If he can't or won't get with the program, then to hell with him, too.
> 
> I'm just going to appreciate the fact that a sitting state rep - one with whom I quite probably vehemently disagree, over a number of other things - is strongly advocating _exactly_ the right sort of stance with regard to the feds (and I'm going to do it without trying to find something else to piss and moan about).


That's considered when you 'call a spade a spade.' 

And even Ron Paul is able to do that.

----------


## nobody's_hero

Even Jimmy gets it:




Jimmy is no fan of Trump, but a spade is a spade.

----------


## acptulsa

> *FBI Raid on Trump Designed to Stop Him Running in 2024*
> 
> Infowars | Paul Joseph Watson
> August 9th 2022
> 
> 
> The FBI raid on Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago estate is specifically designed to stop him from running for president again in 2024, legal experts have concluded.
> 
> Trumps Palm Beach property was raided by the feds last night as part of a supposed investigation into Trump taking classified documents when he left office.
> ...




It's hilarious this is all so similar to one of Hillary's worst faux pas, right down to happening in the bathroom.  If all this keeps Hillary from running again, I say it's tax dollars about as well spent as you can hope for.

----------


## ClaytonB



----------


## Brian4Liberty

> *FBI Raid on Trump Designed to Stop Him Running in 2024*
> 
> Infowars | Paul Joseph Watson
> August 9th 2022
> 
> 
> The FBI raid on Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago estate is specifically designed to stop him from running for president again in 2024, legal experts have concluded.
> 
> Trumps Palm Beach property was raided by the feds last night as part of a supposed investigation into Trump taking classified documents when he left office.
> ...


Hmmm...eliminating opposing candidates, entrapment, seems to be a pattern.




> What an interesting coincidence. Another interesting coincidence is that the FBI chief who was in charge of the Whitmer kidnapping plot was also in charge of the Trump Mar A Lago raid.

----------


## acptulsa

> What an interesting coincidence. Another interesting coincidence is that the FBI chief who was in charge of the Whitmer kidnapping plot was also in charge of the Trump Mar A Lago raid.


I wonder how long it would stay up if he were listed as a hatchet man on his Wiki page?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is the way:
> 
> https://twitter.com/AnthonySabatini/...05568207196160


Yes, this is how it is done.

I can think of no better use of the proposed Florida State Guard than enforcing such a proposal...aside from standing guard at Mar-A-Lago perhaps.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Beautiful, delicious division.  Trump is the gift that keeps on giving


The nation's self segregation continues unabated.

----------


## WisconsinLiberty

*Rep. Anthony Sabatini Calls for the Florida State Government to Break All Ties with the Department of Justice*

The days of America operating like a respectable republic based on the rule of law ended with the FBI’s raid of former President Donald Trump’s residence in Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022.

Those who were led to believe that the FBI is a “neutral” and “impartial” institution received a hard dose of reality on this fateful day. Wishful thinking goes out the window when one stares down the barrel of gross tyranny
...

----------


## acptulsa

> *Rep. Anthony Sabatini Calls for the Florida State Government to Break All Ties with the Department of Justice*
> 
> The days of America operating like a respectable republic based on the rule of law ended with the FBI’s raid of former President Donald Trump’s residence in Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022.
> 
> Those who were led to believe that the FBI is a “neutral” and “impartial” institution received a hard dose of reality on this fateful day. Wishful thinking goes out the window when one stares down the barrel of gross tyranny
> ...


He threw the right rock in the water.  This is the splash we need to make.

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## Brian4Liberty



----------


## WisconsinLiberty

> Most people on this cannot see past their political bias blinders. 
> 
> Fact is, it has nothing to do with political bias, either way. Trump knew for months they could do this. Did he set it up with Wray tipping him off ? Or did Wray not tip him off ? That matters. What else matters is that documents belonging to the United States are not the property of Donald J. Trump, they are the property of the United States. We can be sober-minded about this, and perceptive, or we can be mentally abused for political purposes, and that swings both ways. Don't be used. All I'm saying.


I see you haven't been paying attention for the last couple of years. Trump has been attacked repeatedly ever since he was elected President and after. Now the attacks are ramping up just as he's about to announce a 2024 run.


*Anti-Trump Lawyer Spills the Beans: Mar-a-Lago Raid Seeks to Keep Trump From Running in 2024*
https://thenewamerican.com/anti-trum...nning-in-2024/

----------


## Snowball

> I see you haven't been paying attention for the last couple of years. Trump has been attacked repeatedly ever since he was elected President and after. Now the attacks are ramping up just as he's about to announce a 2024 run.
> 
> 
> *Anti-Trump Lawyer Spills the Beans: Mar-a-Lago Raid Seeks to Keep Trump From Running in 2024*
> https://thenewamerican.com/anti-trum...nning-in-2024/





> I see you haven't been paying attention for the last couple of years. Trump has been attacked repeatedly ever since he was elected President and after. Now the attacks are ramping up just as he's about to announce a 2024 run.
> 
> 
> *Anti-Trump Lawyer Spills the Beans: Mar-a-Lago Raid Seeks to Keep Trump From Running in 2024*
> https://thenewamerican.com/anti-trum...nning-in-2024/


Classified documents are not the personal property of Donald Trump. They are the property of the United States. The DOJ has been very patient with Trump. It took him a full year to turn over 15 boxes of documents that were not his to legally withhold. Saying Crooked Hillary did it with her e-mails and furniture doesn't cut it. All his private communications were kept private. Fine, and I'm for that. But had already torn up documents, while staff had to tape them back together. Some were never recovered. I believe in his right to privacy even while president, but I'm not going to defend Trump carte blanche like most of his loyalists are so willing to do. I'll leave a little bit of that Kool-Aid in the glass if you don't mind. We're not talking about a guy who advanced many real truths or solved any mysteries for us. He is a player. Don't kid yourself. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ed/ar-AA10ui3r
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...ar-a-lago-raid

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Classified documents are not the personal property of Donald Trump. They are the property of the United States. The DOJ has been very patient with Trump. It took him a full year to turn over 15 boxes of documents that were not his to legally withhold. Saying Crooked Hillary did it with her e-mails and furniture doesn't cut it. All his private communications were kept private. Fine, and I'm for that. But had already torn up documents, while staff had to tape them back together. Some were never recovered. I believe in his right to privacy even while president, but I'm not going to defend Trump carte blanche like most of his loyalists are so willing to do. I'll leave a little bit of that Kool-Aid in the glass if you don't mind. We're not talking about a guy who advanced many real truths or solved any mysteries for us. He is a player. Don't kid yourself. 
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ed/ar-AA10ui3r
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...ar-a-lago-raid


The thing is, they've already been busted fabricating evidence against Trump with the fake dossier. Who is to say they aren't doing it again?

You want to investigate Trump go ahead, but you'll need to find someone with an ounce of credibility left to head such an investigation, because it looks to me like they're just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks at this point.

And doing more to make a martyr out of the man every day.

----------


## tod evans

Freedom caucus? 


*GOP Rep. Scott Perry says FBI seized his cell phone*

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3...is-cell-phone/

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) says that the FBI confiscated his cell phone after three agents approached him while he was traveling with his family on Tuesday.

Perry, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, told Fox News in a statement that he was handed a warrant as agents requested the device, just one day after the FBI executed a search warrant at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

It is not clear what the FBI is allegedly looking for in Perry’s cell phone. The agency declined to comment on the matter, as did the Department of Justice (DOJ). Perry’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.

“This morning, while traveling with my family, 3 FBI agents visited me and seized my cell phone. They made no attempt to contact my lawyer, who would have made arrangements for them to have my phone if that was their wish. I’m outraged — though not surprised — that the FBI under the direction of Merrick Garland’s DOJ, would seize the phone of a sitting Member of Congress,” Perry said in a statement to Fox News. “My phone contains info about my legislative and political activities, and personal/private discussions with my wife, family, constituents, and friends. None of this is the government’s business.”

“[A]s with President Trump last night, DOJ chose this unnecessary and aggressive action instead of simply contacting my attorneys. These kinds of banana republic tactics should concern every Citizen — especially considering the decision before Congress this week to hire 87,000 new IRS agents to further persecute law-abiding Citizens,” the Perry statement said.

Perry has been the subject of scrutiny by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol. The committee issued a subpoena to Perry, but he has refused to cooperate with the panel.

The committee’s subpoena said that Perry was “directly involved” with efforts to make Department of Justice attorney Jeffrey Clark the acting attorney general. Clark was a key figure in Trump’s election fraud probes that other administration officials balked at.

The committee has also said that Perry was one of several House Republicans who sought a pardon from Trump, which he has denied.

----------


## devil21

> Is there an echo in here?


Yeah, that's what it sounds like when at least two people aren't knee-jerking morons.


This is all such a "trust me bro" story.  Not a shred of evidence presented that it even happened outside of a few "trust me bro" statements from known liars.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Freedom caucus?


Freedom isn't popular (at the DOJ and FBI).

Remember this? Just a trial run....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-and-John-Tate

----------


## Brian4Liberty

So soon we forget...




> First they came for Kokesh, now they have come for Benton and Tate...

----------


## pcosmar

Rally in Florida.. (nostalgia)




Cuban Gal is highly entertaining on several levels.

----------


## unknown

Think Trump will reconsider his worship of LEOs ?

----------


## pcosmar

another view.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> fixed incorrect video code & added header


Thanks, I owe you a rep.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The globalist left establishment has no qualms about turning the US into another Ukraine, Syria, Sri Lanka or any other devastated nation.


Don't doubt for a second that a part of the strategy here by Biden, Garland and friends is to inflame Americans into doing something that they can call another insurrection. Declaring martial law is always a preferred option for the totalitarians.

----------


## donnay



----------


## Occam's Banana

https://twitter.com/KennedyNation/st...59309259296769

----------


## acptulsa

> And people change, and his record stands for all people to see.  Not forgiving, acptulsa?  You know what it says in the Good Book about those who are not forgiving?


Of course.




The Bible says forgive.  It doesn't say hand the keys to your car to the idiot that just wrecked it the moment you get it back out of the shop.

It says turn the other cheek, not hand the devil a whole other fender.  There's a difference, dear.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Yes, you know why they're going after Trump so hard.  As much lying as they've done, they can no longer just tell people lies and be believed.  They have to lie with their actions to get people to believe, to say it's "clear", that their lies are true.
> 
> Did they come in the middle of the night with an MRAP and flash-bang grenades?  Why not?
> 
> Just not so "clear" to me.


It seems more to me that people just aren't believing their lies, so they have to up the ante and resort to more direct action.

The only people who really thought the Jan 6 hearings were going anywhere were people who stay glued to MSNBCNN. It's a big flop, so they need something more. 

The thing is, they're going to make a martyr of Trump if they keep it up.   @pcosmar posted the rally going on outside MAL right now. 

You may not think this is much worth getting feathers ruffled over, but there are *a ton* of people who do. Including some folks like Massie and Rand who have rightfully called out the unprecedented nature of the FBI's actions at MAL. I doubt they'll be voting for Trump first-pick, if at all, but damn, at least they can call it for what it is.

----------


## acptulsa

> The thing is, they're going to make a martyr of Trump if they keep it up.


Yeah, see, you _do_ get it.  Nobody has more street cred than a martyr, even if they're still alive and still being paid to betray you.  Yes, they're making a martyr, just as if they had an assembly line.  Only thing is, a living martyr can still turn on you.  Dead martyrs are more convenient that way.

Look, I'm happy they're taking the mask off the banana republic.  I love the thought that people might actually do something about it.  But "I'm a proven failure, but I got served a search warrant and now I'm really as pissed as I pretended to be before" still isn't my idea of job qualifications.

----------


## pcosmar



----------


## acptulsa

> 


God bless her, she knows what and she knows why.  She doesn't seem to have blind faith in Trump.  In fact, she seems to understand perfectly well that trusting Trump to fix things without lots of help and lots of people holding his feet to the fire is highly unlikely to prevent catastrophe.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> This is the kind of thing people say when they know something was to be found.
> 
> Or, he really could be targeted and victimised. But still, *for a president to insinuate that the US government would plant
> evidence on him to set him up is a first. Even if he suspected they would do this, it should not be said publicly. The only
> reason to say it is in preparation for something bad. It is an historic insult.*
> 
> I never liked the Wray appointment. I thought it said something about Trump or that he was coerced into it.
> Then, the Las Vegas shooting coverup made me sure. Wray is straight out of the Bush clan with likely
> Skull & Bones membership or at the very least very close ties to them. *But Trump shouldn't have said this. Not yet.*
> ...


If the reporting about these documents is true - that the FBI had been in communication with Trump regarding the documents' security, etc., and that the documents were handled from DC to MAL by GSA, then there are no surprises in them, and all the "right people" know basically what is in them.  If there are surprises found, in my view that would be suspish, to say the least.  

_Disclaimer statement: I am not a Trump supporter, but even a blind, deaf moron can see how vigorously he's being targeted, harassed, and vilified well beyond any imaginable precedent. _

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> More like Trump is a well known liar, drama queen and instigator of political turmoil.


The only politicians I would say with confidence are not those things are Thomas Massie and Rand Paul, so I'm not so sure this is a convincing statement.

----------


## acptulsa

> I am not a Trump supporter, but even a blind, deaf moron can see how vigorously he's being targeted, harassed, and vilified well beyond any imaginable precedent.


Absolutely.  It's the same old game.




But they never ramped it up like this before.  They're playing toward some kind of end game.  And while it plays out, I know who I'm _not_ going to count on.

----------


## 69360

> _Disclaimer statement: I am not a Trump supporter, but even a blind, deaf moron can see how vigorously he's being targeted, harassed, and vilified well beyond any imaginable precedent. _


Trump caused chaos beyond precedent. What did you expect to happen?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> But they never ramped it up like this before.  They're playing toward some kind of end game.


Yes, no question. 

The establishment has always vilified and attacked those who pose a threat to their order, but with Trump the trajectory has gone hyperbolic.  There HAS to be reasons for this, and not included among those reasons is, "racism", "homophobia", "transphobia", "xenophobia", or even "reform", or "moderation".  He has become viewed as some kind of existential threat to the establishment, for whatever reason - because I agree with you that he is basically a generic NY liberal with basically fairly moderate policy positions (compare/contrast his platform to Clintons in 1992/1996, for example)... In my analysis, I conclude that he does actually, somehow, constitute some kind of existential threat to their plans; and I believe that is because he is a political, if not social, outsider, who came into the presidency without the sanction of the establishment, and who played outside of the lines... how many presidents were elected in the last 100 years who weren't in politics to some degree or another before being elected?  He hadn't been read into the playbook.  He disregarded it.  Even tho he relied on a lot of the same players - he made HORRIBLE decisions when it came to appointments, etc. - but he didn't just sit there and do what he was told, like every president since Kennedy.  

I don't know man.  I don't care, really... ultimately, it's all pushing back the ocean with a broom until the SHTF.  I'm just growing gardens and building community, because I think that's the best use of my time right now.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Trump caused chaos beyond precedent. What did you expect to happen?


No, he really didn't.  Can you cite examples of what "chaos" he "caused"?

----------


## pcosmar

> No, he really didn't.  Can you cite examples of what "chaos" he "caused"?


Attempts to drain the swamp stirred up the Swamp Critters.

and all the leftover *Hillary Lost* Butthurt.

----------


## acptulsa

> No, he really didn't.  Can you cite examples of what "chaos" he "caused"?


You're right.  He really didn't.  He was totally business as usual.  They're twisting reality to the point where the man sets up a genuine giant take your poison and like it cult, and people call him a revolutionary fighting against what he authorized a bunch of executive branch agencies to create.  Even though he refuses to denounce it even to this day.

He was Gerald Ford with an attitude.  He effectively pardoned Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, they're poking and prodding and poking.  They've declared war on us without the slightest provocation.  They're poking and prodding.  They're daring us to start a hot civil war.  It couldn't be anything else.

Fight now or be their slaves.  But we have to be able to point to the evidence and the election to say we're on the side of the Constitution, the law of the land.  We'd be wise to make sure the first shot is fired keeping a vote count honest.

In any case, if they have their way and I have to drag my old ass out and fight, I'm going to be looking to die to elect someone as reliable and wise as Rand Paul.






> Attempts to drain the swamp stirred up the Swamp Critters.
> 
> and all the leftover *Hillary Lost* Butthurt.


I'm so sick of that soap opera.  Who shot J.R?  Tell me Trump isn't playing J.R. Ewing.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm so sick of that soap opera.


It is not about Trump,, it is about *Hillary Losing*. 
That is the Base TDS.

and the left has gone M.A.D. destroy everything.

----------


## acptulsa

> It is not about Trump,, it is about *Hillary Losing*. 
> That is the Base TDS.
> 
> and the left has gone M.A.D. destroy everything.


At last.  Someone talking sense in this thread.

----------


## Snowball

> If the reporting about these documents is true - that the FBI had been in communication with Trump regarding the documents' security, etc., and that the documents were handled from DC to MAL by GSA, then there are no surprises in them, and all the "right people" know basically what is in them.  If there are surprises found, in my view that would be suspish, to say the least.  
> 
> _Disclaimer statement: I am not a Trump supporter, but even a blind, deaf moron can see how vigorously he's being targeted, harassed, and vilified well beyond any imaginable precedent. _


I still don't get why Trump would talk like the FBI would plant something. Before the fact. I think he's worried.
This raid was not exclusive to the boxes. They went through the whole joint digging.

----------


## WisconsinLiberty

*Tulsi Gabbard: FBI Raid Against Trump a Blatant Abuse of Power*


Infowars
August 10th 2022


The Biden administration is using the FBI "to target their political opponents or frankly anyone who dares to dissent or challenge or disagree or even question what this administration is doing," says former congresswoman.

----------


## acptulsa

> I still don't get why Trump would talk like the FBI would plant something. Before the fact.


Because the FBI would absolutely plant something, given the orders.

Seems like reason enough to me.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I still don't get why Trump would talk like the FBI would plant something. Before the fact. I think he's worried.
> This raid was not exclusive to the boxes. They went through the whole joint digging.


It's THEATER.  Everyone had their hands on those documents.  The FBI was advising him as to how to secure them.  GSA took them to MAL.  They were available to the entire WH staff for 4 years.  

They've done it before.  They staged the Russia hoax, they contrived the Ukraine Phone Call... at some point, you have to ask yourself why is this so important to them.

----------


## pcosmar

> Because the FBI would absolutely plant something, given the orders.
> 
> Seems like reason enough to me.


That seems reason enough to disband them.

----------


## CCTelander

> Because the FBI would absolutely plant something, given the orders.
> 
> Seems like reason enough to me.



The FBI has a LONG, SORDID history of planting or manufacturing evidence. For some strange reason nothing substantive ever seems to get done about it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You're right.  He really didn't.  He was totally business as usual.  They're twisting reality to the point where the man sets up a genuine giant take your poison and like it cult, and people call him a revolutionary fighting against what he authorized a bunch of executive branch agencies to create.  Even though he refuses to denounce it even to this day.
> 
> He was Gerald Ford with an attitude.  He effectively pardoned Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Yeah, they're poking and prodding and poking.  They've declared war on us without the slightest provocation.  They're poking and prodding.  They're daring us to start a hot civil war.  It couldn't be anything else.


All of this.  ALL OF IT.  

I look at Trump as a bit of a Trojan horse... mindless, pointless, but pushing through the gates nonetheless.  Michael Malice says that Trump isn't the river, he's the dam... and he's 100% right about that.

----------


## acptulsa

> Michael Malice says that Trump isn't the river, he's the dam... and he's 100% right about that.


Yes he is.  Trump's the damned dam.  He's a great big orange pacifier.

They don't trust us to get off our asses and start fighting.  But they aren't doing very much shooting yet.  They obviously think if we went off on them anytime soon, they'd win.  But they seem to want to make it look legit, even though everything else they do is completely clownish.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The FBI has a LONG, SORDID history of planting or manufacturing evidence. For some strange reason nothing substantive ever seems to get done about it.


And we can point this out without being "pro-Trump".  It's okay to say, "hey - that guy is a dick, but what they're doing - and what they've been doing for DECADES - is WRONG and destructive, and needs to be stopped."

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yes he is.  Trump's the damned dam.  He's a great big orange pacifier.


That's not where Malice goes with this concept...

----------


## CCTelander

> And we can point this out without being "pro-Trump".  It's okay to say, "hey - that guy is a dick, but what they're doing - and what they've been doing for DECADES - is WRONG and destructive, and needs to be stopped."



Oh, absolutely. Trump has been nothing but bad for the cause of liberty (overall, his few good deeds notwithstanding). But the man still has rights just like any one of us.

As far as “weaponizing” the FBI goes, while they do seem to be getting more flagrant and “in your face’ about it, the FBI has ALWAYS been used as a political weapon and it serves nobody who is in power’s interests to do anything substantive about that. So, most likely, nothing substantive will be done.

----------


## acptulsa

> That's not where Malice goes with this concept...


I see.  Trump the Trigger.

Yeah, man.  The government is so used to doing things for us that the government will lose our civil war for us, so we can all settle down to our nice slavery and eat our bugs.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I see.  Trump the Trigger.
> 
> Yeah, man.  The government is so used to doing things for us that the government will lose our civil war for us, so we can all settle down to our nice slavery and eat our bugs.


Malice is white-pilled.  He believes liberty wins in the end.  

But what he means when he says that Trump is the dam and not the river, is that Trump is only slowing down the inevitable... at least according to my interpretation.  There is a rage building in this country, and the more they push back, the more wild the rapids get.

I think Malice sees a surge of anti-establishmentarianism coming behind Trump.  And I pray he is right about that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Oh, absolutely. Trump has been nothing but bad for the cause of liberty (overall, his few good deeds notwithstanding). But the man still has rights just like any one of us.
> 
> As far as “weaponizing” the FBI goes, while they do seem to be getting more flagrant and “in your face’ about it, the FBI has ALWAYS been used as a political weapon and it serves nobody who is in power’s interests to do anything substantive about that. So, most likely, nothing substantive will be done.


While likely nothing will come of it, the best result of this whole sordid business has been seeing republicans and their mouth-pieces calling for the defunding/destruction of the FBI.  It's not going to happen, and if it ever came to an actual vote (which it won't), every one of them with the exception of Massie and probably Rand, would vote "present", at best, the rhetoric is good, and it NEEDS TO BE SIEZED UPON by us.  The FBI, and the IRS, and DOE and ATF, etc., need to be taken down, whole cloth, and as soon as possible.

----------


## acptulsa

> I think Malice sees a surge of anti-establishmentarianism coming behind Trump.  And I pray he is right about that.


There is.  No question.  It's being manufactured.  They're so desperate to make the civil war (they can hardly avoid if they want us enslaved) all about Republicans and Democrats that they raided the home of a former president.

Trump is a manufactured martyr.  We wind up fighting each other to decide if we have fascism or communism.  The media is even promoting those very names for the two sides they created.  And guess which side Klaus Schwab is on?  Both, of course.  If Trump wins they'll just name it Trumpcine, just as Trump Himself once suggested.

I'm not fighting for either one.  I'll fight the one that threatens to outlive me.  What did they say in the pool halls back in the day?  I'll take on (what's left of) the winner.

Sounds like a senseless depopulation operation to me.  I don't deserve the fate that's going to befall the "but fascism's so much better than communism" crowd.

Sounds like the Spanish Civil War is their script.  Did anyone but Franco win that war?  Was anyone else likely to?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> There is.  No question.  It's being manufactured.  They're so desperate to make the civil war (they can hardly avoid if they want us enslaved) all about Republicans and Democrats that they raided the home of a former president.
> 
> Trump is a manufactured martyr.  We wind up fighting each other to decide if we have fascism or communism.  The media is even promoting those very names for the two sides they created.
> 
> I'm not fighting for either one.  I'll fight the one that threatens to outlive me.  What did they say in the pool halls back in the day?  I'll take on (what's left of) the winner.
> 
> Sounds like a senseless depopulation operation to me.  I don't deserve the fate that's going to befall the "but fascism's so much better than communism" crowd.
> 
> Sounds like the Spanish Civil War is their script.  Did anyone but Franco win that war?  Was anyone else likely to?


I guess I just disagree with the premise that the only solution is civil war.  I think we can dismantle the establishment without descending into that caldron.  Maybe not.  Probably not.  But at the same time, whatever it takes.  I'll take a civil war over the slow creep of fascism or communism, or whatever newly contrived variance they're conceived.  Whatever results in freedom, I'm for.  And I don't see any freedom coming from the state, or from the power-elite.  So whatever they propose, I'm against.

----------


## Snowball

> It's THEATER.  Everyone had their hands on those documents.  The FBI was advising him as to how to secure them.  GSA took them to MAL.  They were available to the entire WH staff for 4 years.  
> 
> They've done it before.  They staged the Russia hoax, they contrived the Ukraine Phone Call... at some point, you have to ask yourself why is this so important to them.


Can't say I agree with what you're saying here. Follow me for a minute. 

1) When a small group of FBI and DOJ went to MAL in June, yes, they saw where the boxes were kept, and wanted assurance it was safe, but do you know if they actually went through them? Show me where it says they went through the documents. Trump's lawyers were on hand. If they did not go through all the docs, and only learned more about them generally via Trump's lawyers, then they didn't have "their hands" on them. They might have even figured out they were being lied to about some of the documents' natures. 

2) The GSA that took them to MAL did so under Trump's orders. It was very early and there was no inquiry, they were just doing as told. Warehouse workers. 

3) Whether they were or weren't available to some or all WH staff is relevant if they are classified or TS, and if those ppl had clearance, but moreover that isn't the reason for the search. Documents Trump should not keep according to law are in there. If he was not warned there could be a warrant, then they set him up. You can be sure the whole shebang was wired up - and the DOJ has all the conversations that can be used as evidence also. 

I'm not taking a side against Trump here. I'm just saying he's worried and that's why he publicly suggested they are out to get him and planted something. It might not even be something in the boxes but elsewhere. This is going places. I do not believe it is mere 'theatre'.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

Let liberals fund their own programs via donations from the people that support all those programs. If support is not there, eliminate the programs. When people stop thinking everything is free all the fighting stops. When people have to pay see the tab for the things they thought they wanted they will no longer want it. 

If criminals will get guns and use those guns against innocent people, why would any person think that the solution is to take weapons away from innocent people? If you are against guns, Great! Don't own a gun. Do what you want and pay for what you want and let others do the same.

Ala fuching cart government. Get what you pay for. Liberty, liberty, liberty,,, only pay for what you need.

Government should have to compete for your business. If they want you to send your kids to their schools then you pay for it and they need to provide something that parents want. Same with healthcare and everything. Stop doing everything for me....

----------


## acptulsa

> I guess I just disagree with the premise that the only solution is civil war.  I think we can dismantle the establishment without descending into that caldron.


Hope so.  We start at the polls.  It will take a lot of dedicated spare time.  Ultimately it won't come down to us.  Either they'll blink, or they'll give the order to attack and we'll have that magic moment when a military commander says, "I'll just obey my oath to the Constitution instead."

Looked at in that light, you can see why they're so desperate to convince us to kill our neighbors instead.  Especially since no matter who loses the war over whether we live in their fascism or their communism, they win.

----------


## acptulsa

> This is going places. I do not believe it is mere 'theatre'.


Dude.  Nobody said their theater doesn't serve a deadly purpose.  They wouldn't spend billions creating it otherwise.

They fill it with fascinating minutiae, no doubt.  But the fact that you don't like the word theater doesn't mean I'm going to war for Trump America, or the USSA either.

I hope I'm still around to eliminate the winner before it can even lick its wounds.

I'm done begging people to stop being fooled.  Go, fight people because you find something to prefer about either communists or fascists.  If you win, you'll be dealing with me.  The only hard part is staying neutral.

----------


## Snowball

> Dude.  Nobody said their theater doesn't serve a deadly purpose.  They wouldn't spend billions creating it otherwise.
> 
> They fill it with fascinating minutiae, no doubt.  But the fact that you don't like the word theater doesn't mean I'm going to war for Trump America, or the USSA either.
> 
> I hope I'm still around to eliminate the winner before it can even lick its wounds.


Oh, that is really rich from the guy whose been arguing with me for weeks that we shouldn't even bother to vote for Trump 
because he's not a white unicorn with pink lipstick and DD cups.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Jesse Waters gives it to Graham...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> *Eric Trump Says Mar-a-Lago Security Cameras Captured FBI Agents Behaving Improperly*
> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ng-improperly/
> 
> *Eric Trump Says Security Cameras Captured FBI Acting Improperly During Raid*
> https://www.newsweek.com/eric-trump-...g-raid-1732672


Improperly? The guys that were trying on Melania’s clothes were undergoing a gender crisis. It is a hate crime to question that.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Improperly? The guys that were trying on Melania’s clothes were undergoing a gender crisis. It is hate crime to question that.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Improperly? The guys that were trying on Melania’s clothes were undergoing a gender crisis. It is hate crime to question that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

News now that a bunch of PA R's have been subpoenaed as a part of the Scott Perry thing...  

The more I ponder on these recent events, the more I tend to think it likely that the Democrats have no intention of losing 2022 or 2024, by hook or by crook, as they say.  This feels like a coup.  They're obviously manufacturing this narrative - it's plain to see, and everyone in the know knows it.  So they're not going to allow the Republicans to gain power and turn their tactics right back on them, especially with all the criminal activity that would be easily investigated and prosecuted.  Of course, DOJ/FBI are obviously working for them, and changing out the AG or the Director of the FBI won't change any of that.  

Strange and likely bad days ahead, friends.  I hope you're all prepared.

----------


## CaptUSA

> News now that a bunch of PA R's have been subpoenaed as a part of the Scott Perry thing...  
> 
> The more I ponder on these recent events, the more I tend to think it likely that the Democrats have no intention of losing 2022 or 2024, by hook or by crook, as they say.  This feels like a _continuation of the_ coup.  They're obviously manufacturing this narrative - it's plain to see, and everyone in the know knows it.  So they're not going to allow the Republicans to gain power and turn their tactics right back on them, especially with all the criminal activity that would be easily investigated and prosecuted.  Of course, DOJ/FBI are obviously working for them, and changing out the AG or the Director of the FBI won't change any of that.  
> 
> Strange and likely bad days ahead, friends.  I hope you're all prepared.


Adjusted that for you, slightly...

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## nobody's_hero

> Adjusted that for you, slightly...


What'chu talkin bout?

----------


## Snowball

> You say you aren't going to defend Trump like all the "loyalists" are willing to do... okay, fair enough, but why is nearly everything you've just written premised on fake news you would hear from MSNBC?


Trump made a ton of mistakes his last year in office. Then he went way too hard on the election results fight. January 6th should NOT have happened. Now he's gotten into this - when all he had to do was turn over the docs. He turned over 15 boxes a year after they wanted them, then he kept at least 12 more and when the officials were there in June he should have turned everything over. We have to remember why Trump lost and how he fvucked up Covid-19 and would not leave office with respect. He is a damaged candidate.

I care more about this country being ruined and about getting rid of the Democrats more than I care about Trump. 
I'm tired of him being a fantasy figure that controls the entire conservative poltical future. 
But like I said many times *I will vote for him if that's our choice*.

So - let's hope for the best - whatever that is. I'm not even going to follow this deeply any longer because I'm more concerned about this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-close-to-war

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Trump made a ton of mistakes his last year in office. Then he went way too hard on the election results fight. January 6th should NOT have happened. Now he's gotten into this - when all he had to do was turn over the docs. He turned over 15 boxes a year after they wanted them, then he kept at least 12 more and when the officials were there in June he should have turned everything over. 
> 
> I care more about this country being ruined and about getting rid of the Democrats more than I care about Trump. 
> I'm tired of him being a fantasy figure that controls the entire conservative poltical future. But like I said many times I will vote for him if that's our choice.
> 
> So - let's hope for the best - whatever that is.


I have to disagree that he controls the entire conservative future. He's a small part of it. At most, he gets 4 more years. Then he's done (if he isn't already), and we're still left to deal with the machine that will remain. I hope the machine suffers as much exposure and damage as possible before someone more liberty-oriented takes over.  To me, that is the best we can hope for, helpless as we are at present.

----------


## Snowball

> I have to disagree that he controls the entire conservative future. He's a small part of it. At most, he gets 4 more years. Then he's done (if he isn't already), and we're still left to deal with the machine that will remain. I hope the machine suffers as much exposure and damage as possible before someone more liberty-oriented takes over.  To me, that is the best we can hope for, helpless as we are at present.


Trump and his network may very well may dominate for decades if re-elected- he has a big family with political power ambitions.

----------


## showpan

> Trump made a ton of mistakes his last year in office. Then he went way too hard on the election results fight. January 6th should NOT have happened. Now he's gotten into this - when all he had to do was turn over the docs. He turned over 15 boxes a year after they wanted them, then he kept at least 12 more and when the officials were there in June he should have turned everything over. We have to remember why Trump lost and how he fvucked up Covid-19 and would not leave office with respect. He is a damaged candidate.
> 
> I care more about this country being ruined and about getting rid of the Democrats more than I care about Trump. 
> I'm tired of him being a fantasy figure that controls the entire conservative poltical future. 
> But like I said many times *I will vote for him if that's our choice*.
> 
> So - let's hope for the best - whatever that is. I'm not even going to follow this deeply any longer because I'm more concerned about this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-close-to-war


First, the last election proved that we do not have honest and fair elections and we will never have one again because Americans allowed it to happen (it was caught on video) and will do nothing at all in the next one. Jan 6th should not have happened, it should have been much bigger.
Second, covid is a man made biological weapon that destroyed the economy, killed off the elderly and eliminated about half of all small business as corporations obtained an even greater monopoly. It was the largest transfer of wealth this country has ever witnessed. Again, Americans did nothing about it and continue to remain passive and wear their face diapers.
Thirdly, The raid on Trumps home is nothing short of an attack on a political rival we've only seen before in 3rd world countries. Now it's happening here and just like the last election, this country is no better than a 3rd world country.
There are a lot of other facts to consider as we arm Neo Nazi's and actively fight a proxy war we have no business being in while instigating military responses from the other 2 mightiest empires on this planet....lol....yet still, Americans remain passive and for the most part, supportive....lol. 
As we edge closer to famine and soylent green, I'm thinking nukes might not be so bad after all....lol...and I doubt that if aliens did invade now, they wouldn't think we would make great pets either.

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## ClaytonB

> ... we do not have honest and fair elections and we will never have one again...


That's just black-pilling. It's true that the globalists are audacious enough to steal a national election on live television. Audacity will get you places, no doubt... _Catch Me If You Can_, and all that. But the world is much bigger than audacity. The Cosmos does not run on audacity. So, in the long run, their audacity is not going to get them anywhere except prison or worse.

----------


## kahless

FBI searched Trump’s home to look for nuclear documents and other items, sources say
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...mp-mar-a-lago/



> Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida residence on Monday, according to people familiar with the investigation.
> 
> Experts in classified information said the unusual search underscores deep concern among government officials about the types of information they thought could be located at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and potentially in danger of falling into the wrong hands.
> ....
> Material about nuclear weapons is especially sensitive and usually restricted to a small number of government officials, experts said. Publicizing details about U.S. weapons could provide an intelligence road map to adversaries seeking to build ways of countering those systems. And other countries might view exposing their nuclear secrets as a threat, experts said.
> ....
> That former official also said signals intelligence — intercepted electronic communications like emails and phone calls of foreign leaders — was among the type of information that often ended up with unauthorized personnel. Such intercepts are among the most closely guarded secrets because of what they can reveal about how the United States has penetrated foreign governments.
> 
> A person familiar with the inventory of 15 boxes taken from Mar-a-Lago in January indicated that signals intelligence material was included in them. The precise nature of the information was unclear.

----------


## vita3

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=quj13dgNieY

----------


## Occam's Banana

> [...] That former official also said signals intelligence — intercepted electronic communications like emails and phone calls of foreign leaders — was among the type of information that often ended up with unauthorized personnel. Such intercepts are among the most closely guarded secrets because of what they can reveal about how the United States has penetrated foreign governments.


TIL signals intelligence "often end[s] up with unauthorized personnel", but is "among the most closely guarded secrets".

(Do the people who write (or edit) this stuff ever bother to actually read it? )

----------


## RonWrightor

Is it weird that people get more excited about this than a certain list, which is well known, that just kind of . . . exists . . . without any scrutiny by the one body that is best situated to give it such?

It is ridiculous that the FBI is involved in this given the general state of affairs.

----------


## devil21

I remember a 10 minute video floating around online some years ago that conclusively connected DJT to the number '88'.

Anybody else remember that? It even had Casino Biff from Back To The Future 2 film as a portrayal of DJT and the 88 connection.  It was a great video but seems to be memory holed now...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> *The Raid On Donald Trump's Home - Part Of The Problem 892*
> _On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave and Robbie discuss the Raid on Donald Trump's Florida home and what it means for American politics moving forward!_
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiVEPVJNjvQ


//

----------


## Snowball

The parent source article from "The Washington Post" (not to be confused with the former newspaper of the same name) is truncated below:

_Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida residence on Monday, according to people familiar with the investigation. Experts in classified information said the unusual search underscores deep concern among government officials about the types of information they thought could be located at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and potentially in danger of falling into the wrong hands.
The people who described some of the material that agents were seeking spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. They did not offer additional details about what type of information the agents were seeking, including whether it involved weapons belonging to the United States or some other nation. Nor did they say if such documents were recovered as part of the search. A Trump spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment._
link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...mp-mar-a-lago/

Reasons why this is deliberate disinformation

The day after the raid, I tuned in to CNN to hear what their side was saying about this. Woudn't you know, multiple times, one of their "experts" said that they "can't imagine" the AG Garland signing the warrant without there being grave import to national security. Information that "cannot fall into the hands of civilians". 

Everything that is recorded and viewed "live" on these networks is digitally fed into a pre-screening filter run by the CIA and Pentagon. Although the filter, conducted and operated by actual agents, is mere seconds, it is enough for the agents to immediately mute or kill what is being said or shown. Additionallly, it is from the CIA and similar agencies that "anonymous" information, most often not information at all, but propaganda, is disseminted by the captured press to the gullible public.

Since the agencies are currently staffed by so many Democrats, the party line is going to be promoted. With this objective of imbuing legitimacy and import to the rubber stamp of AG Garland, they have distributed the propaganda to the Washington Post, which is no loger run by actual journalists, but by appointees of Bezos and agency plants. No additional details, of course. Mission accomplished. Excuse provided. Next. 

"Experts" (see above). "People who described" (descriptions are in the warrant list. The warrant list contains, according to themselves, something I recall hearing them say days ago - a long list of actual documents sought, some classified, and another list of UNNAMABLE documents which, as I heard either John Dean or Carl Bernstein say "are so classified that you cannot even list them as classified" -- that is the black ops, the concealed history, UFOs, JFK, 911, and so on. So, as long as merely one of the long list of sought - and listed - documents is relevant to American OR foreign nuclear weapons, in any way, that's all they have really said here. Therefore, the public hast been deceived by omission and by inaccurate emphasis.

----------


## donnay

It's looking more and more like the documents they were fishing for was about Operation Cross-fire Hurricane.

----------


## Matt Collins



----------


## Matt Collins



----------


## acptulsa

I keep hearing this is unprecedented.  As far as "former president" goes, it is.  But as far as "potential candidate" goes, it all depends, doesn't it?  Is the candidate of a non-officially-approved party a candidate or not?




> MICHAEL BADNARIK ARRESTED
> October 8, 2004
> 8:38PM CT
> 
> The first report from St. Louis is in - and presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) were just arrested. Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause, which he intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from approaching the CPD office by security guards.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I keep hearing this is unprecedented.  As far as "former president" goes, it is.  But as far as "potential candidate" goes, it all depends, doesn't it?  Is the candidate of a non-officially-approved party a candidate or not?


“First, they came for the libertarians...”

----------


## pcosmar

I still fail to find any actual crime alleged.. 

I can only find allegations of conspiracies,, with no articulated crime beyond being Donald Trump.

and I can not conceive how a search Warrant could possibly be Valid. as a warrant must be specific,, and of correct Jurisdiction..

I can't see any way there could be a Valid Warrant based on an anonymous Tip. from another Jurisdiction.


stinky hinky, regardless of who you are

----------


## ClaytonB

Mises Wire -- My Time with the FBI by James Bovard, 09/25/2021

----------


## acptulsa

You can kinda see why people like working for the FBI.  I've never been paid to go fishing in Florida.

----------


## acptulsa

A Democrat-friendly cartoon that could totally be recycled and repurposed today.  Just substitute a donkey and CNN.

----------


## acptulsa

Yeah, serving a warrant on an ex-president is new.  But nothing else here is.

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## acptulsa



----------


## devil21

Ooooh I can haz more investigations?  Will they have as much impact as 42 pages of FISA fraud on the court investigations did?  Those investigations totally made a difference since they were concluded with "training courses".

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nfirmed/page42

What happens if you throw a civil war party but no one shows up?

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## acptulsa



----------


## Occam's Banana

https://twitter.com/ChrisJansing/sta...69112790159360


https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1558460953334784006

----------


## Occam's Banana

> https://twitter.com/ChrisJansing/sta...69112790159360
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1558460953334784006


https://twitter.com/scotthortonshow/...10452664360961

----------


## acptulsa

> https://twitter.com/ChrisJansing/sta...69112790159360


Translation of "potential obstruction of justice": A bogus search warrant based on no evidence and issued in hopes that the intended victim will do something vaguely uncooperative.




> https://twitter.com/scotthortonshow/...10452664360961





>

----------


## Occam's Banana

> This is just as relevant now as it was when it came out (3.5 years ago):
> 
> *It's Time to Fire the FBI: A Rant*
> _Quick, what's the Russian word for 'Bureaucratic Redundancy'?_
> https://odysee.com/@RazorFist:1/it-s...e-fbi-a-rant:8


Updated rant:

*FBI: Raiders of the Lost Derp - Razör Rants*
_If only there were some catchphrase to signify when I've been resoundingly vindicated!_
https://odysee.com/@RazorFist:1/fbi-...p-raz%C3%B6r:b

----------


## Brian4Liberty



----------


## tod evans

> It's online in many mainstream news sources.


Thanks to acptulsa for the link!

After reading the warrant and attached paperwork there is literally nothing spelled out pointing to guilt or innocence.




> I think they have him red handed on the espionage act as laid out in the warrant.


Care to share the documents you base this statement on? I have a feeling they don't exist and you're spouting MSM talking points but I'm willing to change my mind if you've got some evidence.

"It's online" won't cut it either.

----------


## 69360

> Thanks to acptulsa for the link!
> 
> After reading the warrant and attached paperwork there is literally nothing spelled out pointing to guilt or innocence.
> 
> 
> 
> Care to share the documents you base this statement on? I have a feeling they don't exist and you're spouting MSM talking points but I'm willing to change my mind if you've got some evidence.
> 
> "It's online" won't cut it either.


He removed classified documents. He violated the espionage act. 

His passport was seized. He may now be considered a flight risk. I take that as charges may be forthcoming.

----------


## kulak

I hope Melania's dresses are okay. Poor things probably need sanitized now that the peasants touched them and spread their cooties. I mean COVID. But those FBI agents probably will never be that close to such expensive fabric again. They clearly wouldn't be FBI agents if they could score someone wearing a $100,000 cocktail dress.

----------


## tod evans

> He removed classified documents. He violated the espionage act. 
> 
>  He may now be considered a flight risk. I take that as charges may be forthcoming.


There!

I removed the only fact from your opinion.

An opinion that fails completely in response to my request for documents that support your opinion.




> His passport was seized.


"Passport(s)" is the actual fact here according to Trump himself, 3 of them to be specific.

----------


## RJB

> There!
> 
> I removed the only fact from your opinion.
> 
> An opinion that fails completely in response to my request for documents that support your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> "Passport(s)" is the actual fact here according to Trump himself, 3 of them to be specific.


If a warrant is drawn up, obviously the targetted perpetrator was guilty.  That's the law in a land of liberty.  Every FOX News and CNN viewer knows that.

----------


## ClaytonB

> He removed classified documents. He violated the espionage act. 
> 
> His passport was seized. He may now be considered a flight risk. I take that as charges may be forthcoming.

----------


## TheTexan

He mishandled confidential documents!  Raid his home!!  Seize *everything!!*

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Can badge number  @69360 or  @Sonny Tufts explain to me, without bogging their response down with how Trump is a special case or what-about-ing me, why HRC got a pass and Trump got swatted?  Because I'd genuinely like to know what the difference is...

----------


## 69360

> Can badge number  @69360 or  @Sonny Tufts explain to me, without bogging their response down with how Trump is a special case or what-about-ing me, why HRC got a pass and Trump got swatted?  Because I'd genuinely like to know what the difference is...


There is no difference. I think both were guilty.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> There is no difference. I think both were guilty.


You didn't answer my question.  My question was, rather plainly, why did HRC get a pass and Trump got swatted?

----------


## pcosmar

> There is no difference. I think both were guilty.


If so,,Why the Radically Different treatment?

----------


## pcosmar

https://www.4ashli.com/cta/
*Call To Action*

You may ask, “What Could I Possibly Do?” or “What Kind of Difference Could I Possibly Make?” Our first response to those questions would be – “GOOD QUESTIONS! EXCELLENT QUESTIONS!!” The next response would be, “There are so many things that ANYONE can do, and MUST DO!” if TRUTH and JUSTICE are to win. This is precisely the reason for the #4Ashli Movement!

More importantly, as each of these items have the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and DUE PROCESS at its core – these are action items that affect each and every single American Citizen regardless of whether they are involved or affected by the events of January 6, 2021. On behalf of Micki Willhoeft, CAPP (Citizens Against Political Persecution, INC) and A4Justice (Americans for Justice, INC) we would like to say Thank You for doing your part to help keep the spirit of Ashli Babbitt alive! It is through this effort, that the sacrifice made by Ashli Babbitt and others on January 6th will continue to make a difference in saving our nation. Thank You!!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Can badge number  @69360 or  @Sonny Tufts explain to me, without bogging their response down with how Trump is a special case or what-about-ing me, why HRC got a pass and Trump got swatted?  Because I'd genuinely like to know what the difference is...


This *is* a rhetorical question, correct?

----------


## pcosmar

> He removed classified documents. He violated the espionage act.


Those are the Documents that the DOJ had sealed in that room weeks before. all known and accounted for.

Drop the bull$#@! and at least pretend to be an American.

https://www.4ashli.com/

----------


## acptulsa

> This *is* a rhetorical question, correct?


It's certainly being ducked like one.  But it's a fair question.

I'm inclined to theorize that the political science majors figure communists are afraid to fight unless they have Authoritay behind them, and both fascists and freedom lovers are more likely to fight when they are being persecuted.  So, if they want us to fight each other instead of them, they'll cozy up to the useful idiots (makes it easier to get them to swallow their Jonestown Cult Kool-Aid) and make a big show of dissing whomever they can get the right wing to adopt as a figurehead.

----------


## donnay

> It's certainly being ducked like one.  But it's a fair question.
> 
> I'm inclined to theorize that the political science majors figure communists are afraid to fight unless they have Authoritay behind them, and both fascists and freedom lovers are more likely to fight when they are being persecuted.  So, if they want us to fight each other instead of them, they'll cozy up to the useful idiots (makes it easier to get them to swallow their Jonestown Cult Kool-Aid) and make a big show of dissing whomever they can get the right wing to adopt as a figurehead.


And you think Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorists, too.  Uh huh.

----------


## acptulsa

> And you think Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorists, too.  Uh huh.


Isn't he?

----------


## donnay

> Isn't he?


You think he is and that is okay by me, I am just wondering why you think Alex Jones is a nut for doing the same?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> This *is* a rhetorical question, correct?


No.  I'd genuinely like for folks such as 69360 and Sonny Tufts to give their explanation as to why these two seemingly very similar cases are being treated so dissimilarly.  

You and I know, of course, why they're being treated so differently.  But I'd like for them to give their explanation.  That's not rhetorical.  I want an answer.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So, if they want us to fight each other instead of them, they'll cozy up to the useful idiots


Yes.  So, in effect, "they" are "them".  It makes no significant difference.

----------


## acptulsa

> You think he is and that is okay by me, I am just wondering why you think Alex Jones is a nut for doing the same?


I don't.  What makes you think I do?

Hell, at least he parlays that into a mighty good living selling dick pills.  That's more than I can say.

I think I get closer to the truth than he does.  But he laughs at me all the way to the bank.

----------


## donnay

> I don't.  What makes you think I do?
> 
> Hell, at least he parlays that into a mighty good living selling dick pills.  That's more than I can say.
> 
> I think I get closer to the truth than he does.  But he laughs at me all the way to the bank.



Okay, so you don't like that he is a capitalists who funds his own show and staff and doesn't get millions of dollars, funded by Big pHARMa and other corporations sponsors?

----------


## acptulsa

> Okay, so you don't like that he is a capitalists who funds his own show and staff and doesn't get millions of dollars, funded by Big pHARMa and other corporations sponsors?


Don't put words in my mouth.  Most people have noticed I really don't like that by now.

What do I dislike about Alex Jones?  Is that how that question would look, if you were actually asking instead of trying to play silly-assed gotcha games?  The so-called music.  His gravelly voice.  The screaming rants.  The way he repeats himself, stretching ten minutes' worth of content into an hour or two by repeating 90% of the previous segment before producing one new crumb between each pair of dick pills commercials.  The way he congratulates himself for breaking news we've been talking about for a week or two.

That enough? Or do you still feel the need to make stupid $#@! up?

----------


## 69360

> If so,,Why the Radically Different treatment?


IIRC Clinton gave up the material when asked. I could be remembering wrong. They declined to prosecute her. Trump wouldn't have been raided if he did the same. 

If Clinton got a pass Trumo should as well. But they may nail him on this to prevent him from running again.

----------


## pcosmar

> IIRC Clinton gave up the material when asked. I could be remembering wrong.


lol
WAY WRONG.

Clinton Blamed Trump.

and Russians

and killed anyone else.

----------


## acptulsa

> State Department officials contacted Clinton in the summer of 2014 after they discovered they did not have access to many of her emails. State Department spokesman John Kirby said, "In the process of responding to congressional document requests pertaining to Benghazi, State Department officials recognized that it had access to relatively few email records from former Secretary Clinton. State Department officials contacted her representatives during the summer of 2014 to learn more about her email use and the status of emails in that account.”[42] In October 2014, the State Department requested the work-related emails of Clinton and other former secretaries of state after the State Department noted it also "did not have extensive email records from prior Secretaries of State."[42]
> 
> The following month, the House Select Committee on Benghazi requested access to Clinton's emails regarding the 2012 attack in Benghazi. Clinton provided 300 emails. An additional set of emails, produced from other officials' email accounts, had been provided to the committee in August 2014 by the State Department.[1] On December 5, 2014, Clinton released 30,490 printed emails to the State Department. Another 31,830 emails were determined to be private and not released.[1]
> 
> Nearly three months later, on March 2, 2015, Michael Schmidt of The New York Times reported that Clinton "exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state...and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record."[43]


https://ballotpedia.org/Hillary_Clin..._investigation

Did they ever get more than half the information they "demanded"?

And did they get more than about 1% from Clinton, or did they get over 90% of it forensically?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> IIRC Clinton gave up the material when asked. I could be remembering wrong. 
> ...


Yeah, you are remembering wrong. You must have forgotten the little details like internet connected servers in bathrooms full of sensitive, classified and secret documents and communications, that Hillary was doing in total violation of policy and law. You must have forgotten the drives being wiped, and phones being broken apart with hammers after they were subpoenaed. You must have forgotten the server that spied on Congress for the Hillary campaign via Wasserman-Schultz and the Awan brothers, which disappeared and was replaced with a fake server after being subpoenaed.

Yep, everything was exactly the same.


Edit: “You must have forgotten the server that spied on Congress for the Hillary campaign via Wasserman-Schultz and the Awan brothers, which disappeared and was replaced with a fake server after being subpoenaed.” And it shouldn’t be ignored that the data was being shared with Pakistan, and from there likely distributed to the world (for a price).

----------


## acptulsa

> Yep, everything was exactly the same.


1. Set up a double standard.

2. Rub our noses in it.

The closest thing to a funny part this has is the fact that the useful idiots feel certain that they are animals more equal than Trump.  Even as they die from their Jonestown Cult Kool Aid shots.

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Can badge number  @69360 or  @Sonny Tufts explain to me, without bogging their response down with how Trump is a special case or what-about-ing me, why HRC got a pass and Trump got swatted?  Because I'd genuinely like to know what the difference is...


My guess is that the DOJ didn't have the guts to go after HRC.  In addition, did any of HRC's emails have the ultra-high security classification that some of Trump's records did?

Keep in mind that all that's happened to Trump so far is the execution of a search warrant.  He hasn't been charged with, much less convicted of, anything.

----------


## Invisible Man

Let's not talk about the decision not to prosecute Hillary like it was made by some anonymous powers that be.

That decision was made by Trump.

After months of gleefully leading his hypnotized minions in hearty chants of, "Lock her up!!!", once he had the election locked up, he openly and unabashedly flip-flopped on that central promise of his campaign, and went out of his way to rub his supporters' faces in the fact that he could do anything he wanted and they'd never hold him accountable.

Now we have a mumbling dotard in the WH who, in spite of frailty of mind and body, is proving more capable than Trump was of overseeing an administration that will do to Trump what he was too chicken to do to Hillary.

So if Trump and his mouthpieces want to ask us, "Why the double standard?", the question should instead be posed to them.

----------


## vita3

> Let's not talk about the decision not to prosecute Hillary like it was made by some anonymous powers that be.
> 
> That decision was made by Trump.
> 
> After months of gleefully leading his hypnotized minions in hearty chants of, "Lock her up!!!", once he had the election locked up, he openly and unabashedly flip-flopped on that central promise of his campaign, and went out of his way to rub his supporters' faces in the fact that he could do anything he wanted and they'd never hold him accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have a mumbling dotard in the WH who, in spite of frailty of mind and body, is proving more capable than Trump was of overseeing an administration that will do to Trump what he was too chicken to do to Hillary.
> ...


BINGO

----------


## acptulsa

> Let's not talk about the decision not to prosecute Hillary like it was made by some anonymous powers that be.
> 
> That decision was made by Trump.

----------


## PAF

> Let's not talk about the decision not to prosecute Hillary like it was made by some anonymous powers that be.
> 
> That decision was made by Trump.
> 
> After months of gleefully leading his hypnotized minions in hearty chants of, "Lock her up!!!", once he had the election locked up, he openly and unabashedly flip-flopped on that central promise of his campaign, and went out of his way to rub his supporters' faces in the fact that he could do anything he wanted and they'd never hold him accountable.
> 
> So if Trump and his mouthpieces want to ask us, "Why the double standard?", the question should instead be posed to them.



Yes but  @Swordsmyth (even though Trump and the Clintons were life-long friends) Congress, Antifa, FBI, etc. etc. etc. "wouldn't let him". Any good Trumpsupporter knows that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> My guess is that the DOJ didn't have the guts to go after HRC.  In addition, did any of HRC's emails have the ultra-high security classification that some of Trump's records did?
> 
> Keep in mind that all that's happened to Trump so far is the execution of a search warrant.  He hasn't been charged with, much less convicted of, anything.


"Ultra high security" is not at question, here.  And in fact - firstly - there's no such thing as "ultra high security"; and secondly - It's about the "unsecured" possession of "secure" government documents (and frankly, in the case of HRC, the DESTRUCTION thereof.  "But her emails", amirite).  A president has the authority to unilaterally declassify information.  A secretary of state does NOT.  

Also, I'm curious as to your suggestion that DOJ "didn't have the guts" to go after HRC.  Yet they have no compunction "going after DJT... now, why would that be?  DOJ very cordially requested that HRC hand over certain requested information... when it would be convenient for her, of course.  DJT?  Swatted.  Isn't that something to consider?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> 


3rd world countries countenance political persecutions.  All we're seeing here is the mask being pulled off.  

I've said it before - the left has no intention of abdicating power after this brazen act.  They will never allow themselves to subjected to the same schemes they perpetrate.

Hey - I'm all for this open authoritarianism.  At least it's out in the open now, and with any luck we'll be able to use it to convince people that the state is nothing less than socially sanctioned coercive (as long as that's convenient) and/or physical violence.

And again - I hope you are prepared for this, my friends.

----------


## 69360

So Clinton did about the same as Trump. Gave up some of the requested material not all.  Both were clearly guilty of similar offenses. As said several pages earlier, the only question remaining is if Trump also gets a pass on prosecution.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So Clinton did about the same as Trump. Gave up some of the requested material not all.  Both were clearly guilty of similar offenses. As said several pages earlier, the only question remaining is if Trump also gets a pass on prosecution.


Can you not read, or are you purposefully being obtuse?  The question was:




> why [did] HRC [get] a pass and Trump got swatted?


I didn't ask you to compare/contrast their alleged crimes.

----------


## dannno

> So Clinton did about the same as Trump. Gave up some of the requested material not all.  Both were clearly guilty of similar offenses. As said several pages earlier, the only question remaining is if Trump also gets a pass on prosecution.





> Can you not read, or are you purposefully being obtuse?  The question was:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you to compare/contrast their alleged crimes.



I can compare them. Hillary Clinton was NOT the President and had no power to declassify documents. Trump was President and had the ultimate highest authority over such matters.

----------


## acptulsa

> I can compare them. Hillary Clinton was NOT the President and had no power to declassify documents. Trump was President and had the ultimate highest authority over such matters.


Maybe.  But it appears he didn't.  Coulda shoulda woulda aside, he has no power to do it now.

Your loophole doesn't seem to have been used before it closed.  He could have used it?  So?  He didn't have the foresight or the sense to do that.  Too bad so sad.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> A president has the authority to unilaterally declassify information.  A secretary of state does NOT.


Has anyone seen any evidence that Trump declassified any of the records that were taken in the execution of the warrant? 




> DOJ very cordially requested that HRC hand over certain requested information... when it would be convenient for her, of course.  DJT?  Swatted.  Isn't that something to consider?


It's my understanding that Trump was subpoenaed last spring and some records were turned over to the National Archives.  In June a Trump attorney told the DOJ that there were no more classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.  I assume that subsequently the FBI or DOJ received information that this wasn't the case and that there were additional classified documents at the residence, thus prompting the search warrant. 

OK, you don't like "ultra high security".  How about TS/SCI, which stands for Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information?

----------


## dannno

> Maybe.  But it appears he didn't.  Coulda shoulda woulda aside, he has no power to do it now.
> 
> Your loophole doesn't seem to have been used before it closed.  He could have used it?  So?  He didn't have the foresight or the sense to do that.  Too bad so sad.


He did declassify them. The President can declassify documents like Michael Scott declared bankruptcy in The Office.

----------


## dannno

> Has anyone seen any evidence that Trump declassified any of the records that were taken in the execution of the warrant?


Yes. He said himself he declassified them. 

When the President is negotiating with a foreign leader, let's say they are negotiating a nuclear weapons treaty.. he doesn't have to go through a "process" to declassify certain materials in the middle of the negotiation. The President has ultimate authority on what gets declassified. There is no higher authority on this matter.

Some "lawyer" you are.

----------


## 69360

> Can you not read, or are you purposefully being obtuse?  The question was:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you to compare/contrast their alleged crimes.


Simple answer is because Trump had hard copies.

----------


## dannno

This is a cool little test to see if you are actually on the left or the right. 

The right is saying that the duly elected Commander and Chief who has ultimate authority over the declassification of documents declassified them.

The left is saying that an un-elected bureaucratic state has the authority to "check" the President on this issue.

----------


## Invisible Man

> This is a cool little test to see if you are actually on the left or the right. 
> 
> The right is saying that the duly elected Commander and Chief who has ultimate authority over the declassification of documents declassified them.
> 
> The left is saying that an un-elected bureaucratic state has the authority to "check" the President on this issue.


Thanks for that summary! Now I know what line I need to use so that I can fit in with the team I want to be on!

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Yes. He said himself he declassified them. 
> 
> When the President is negotiating with a foreign leader, let's say they are negotiating a nuclear weapons treaty.. he doesn't have to go through a "process" to declassify certain materials in the middle of the negotiation. The President has ultimate authority on what gets declassified. There is no higher authority on this matter.
> 
> Some "lawyer" you are.


I'm a good enough lawyer to understand that when you declassify something you should document that decision in writing. That way nobody has to rely only on the word of someone with very little credibility, such as Trump.

----------


## dannno

> Thanks for that summary! Now I know what line I need to use so that I can fit in with the team I want to be on!


Here's another one.

The right is saying that government transparency > government secrecy

The left is saying that government secrecy > government transparency

Choose your team wisely. We're not in 2012 anymore.

----------


## dannno

> I'm a good enough lawyer to understand that when you declassify something you should document that decision in writing. That way nobody has to rely only on the word of someone with very little credibility, such as Trump.


He did document it. He took the documents to his house.

----------


## dannno

> *IIRC Clinton gave up the material when asked.* I could be remembering wrong. They declined to prosecute her. Trump wouldn't have been raided if he did the same. 
> 
> If Clinton got a pass Trumo should as well. But they may nail him on this to prevent him from running again.





> lol
> WAY WRONG.
> 
> Clinton Blamed Trump.
> 
> and Russians
> 
> and killed anyone else.



Gave up the material when asked? Is that what you remember? Hillary deleted the emails with bleachbit and had her cell phones smashed with a hammer. 

Trump kept the documents at his home for 18 months.

----------


## TheTexan

> Let's not talk about the decision not to prosecute Hillary like it was made by some anonymous powers that be.
> 
> That decision was made by Trump.


If he had tried to do so, the FBI would have refused to carry out the order, with multiple resignations if he insisted, followed immediately by an impeachment trial that would have had the support of both parties.

Should he have done so anyway?  Perhaps - there is a case to be made.  But his Presidency would have been shorter than even William Henry Harrison.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

To date, Hillary is the Greatest Female President that didn't get elected.

----------


## TheTexan

> To date, Hillary is the Greatest Female President that didn't get elected.


Dodged a bullet with that one.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

> Dodged a bullet with that one.


Who is a better POTUS Biden or HRC?

----------


## TheTexan

> Who is a better POTUS Biden or HRC?


Biden just does what his masters tell him to do.

HRC had "ambition".

----------


## Invisible Man

> If he had tried to do so, the FBI would have refused to carry out the order, with multiple resignations if he insisted, followed immediately by an impeachment trial that would have had the support of both parties.
> 
> Should he have done so anyway?  Perhaps - there is a case to be made.  But his Presidency would have been shorter than even William Henry Harrison.


I don't know if any of that is the case. But whether that be his reason for reneging on his campaign promise or something else was, he should have thought of it before making the promise.

----------


## TheTexan

> I don't know if any of that is the case. But whether that be his reason for reneging on his campaign promise or something else was, he should have thought of it before making the promise.


Fair point

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

Too bad I don't have a nickel for every broken campaign promise.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Now we have a mumbling dotard in the WH who, in spite of frailty of mind and body, is proving more capable than Trump was of overseeing an administration that will do to Trump what he was too chicken to do to Hillary





> Biden just does what his masters tell him to do.


I doubt Biden's handlers would allow him to oversee so much as the flower arrangements in the Rose Garden. let alone taking down a former President.

----------


## Snowball

We're never going to know the truth about this.

And of course Trump is not going to tell us, either, unless he gets a second term, then he might cough up some info.

We never got to find out what he was planning in a second term. That was made sure of.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> He did document it. He took the documents to his house.


No, he took documents that didn't belong to him and didn't give some of them them up after being supoenaed. That sounds like theft, not declassification.

Incidentally, the warrant covered unclassified material ("Any governmental and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2021") as well as classified material.

----------


## acptulsa

> He did document it. He took the documents to his house.


Uh, you know, that isn't exactly what that word means...

----------


## TheTexan

If he did in fact declassify the docs, we could presumably get them though FOIA.  I've always wondered what nuclear codes look like.  It's probably like "super potato smash pumpkin alpha 3"

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Has anyone seen any evidence that Trump declassified any of the records that were taken in the execution of the warrant?


A president - ANY president - can declassify any document at any time, without permission from anyone, QED.  Do you think that a president needs permission to declassify a document?  From whom?  And upon what basis should he receive such "permission"?  He may request advice, but ultimately, the decision to declassify documents is his, and his alone.  




> It's my understanding that Trump was subpoenaed last spring and some records were turned over to the National Archives.  In June a Trump attorney told the DOJ that there were no more classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.


This is false - Trump was advised in the spring that the documents in which he was of possession should be secured, and certain elements of the DOJ/FBI advised him as to how he should secure said documents.  It is not in the least bit circumspect that an outgoing executive should carry with him some/many documents relevant to his administration, and that the possession of which would be coordinated with the relevant executive bureaucracies, which very much seems to be the circumstances in this case.  




> I assume that subsequently the FBI or DOJ received information that this wasn't the case and that there were additional classified documents at the residence, thus prompting the search warrant.


Well, I'm sorry.  But you know what they say about "assume"... 




> OK, you don't like "ultra high security".  How about TS/SCI, which stands for Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information?


Irrelevant.  See above.  

Please keep in mind that, based on my posting record here at RPF's, I am no ardent supporter of Trump.  Feel free to search my posting history.  I'm merely observing facts as I see them.  I suggest you do the same, for the sake of your own integrity.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Simple answer is because Trump had hard copies.


"Simple" is damned right.  Digital is FAR worse that hard copies.

How can you even make that argument?  I expected better.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I'm a good enough lawyer to understand that when you declassify something you should document that decision in writing. That way nobody has to rely only on the word of someone with very little credibility, such as Trump.


I'd like to see the CFR reference which codifies this requirement.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Trump kept the documents at his home for 18 months.


And not only was it known to DOJ/FBI, but they advised him as to how to keep said documents secured.

----------


## vita3

Anybody else in awe of how much folks argue or even opine on things they know absolutely nothing about?

Never mind that quip. Carry on with certainty

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No, he took documents that didn't belong to him and didn't give some of them them up after being supoenaed. That sounds like theft, not declassification.
> 
> Incidentally, the warrant covered unclassified material ("Any governmental and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2021") as well as classified material.


You're saying the quiet part out loud - this was clearly, unequivocally, a fishing expedition.  ANY DOCUMENT between the beginning and end of his presidency??  That's as vague of a warrant as you can get, particularly for a former president and prospective challenger to the current regime.  

Can you not just be honest about this?

----------


## Invisible Man

> I doubt Biden's handlers would allow him to oversee so much as the flower arrangements in the Rose Garden. let alone taking down a former President.



Apparently the same applied to Trump.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Apparently the same applied to Trump.


I disagree. I'm inclined to give Trump himself much more of the "credit" for his being such a disappointment.

As for Biden, I'm not entirely confident he is even always aware that he is the President.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I'd like to see the CFR reference which codifies this requirement.


I never said it was legally required.  It's just smart to put it in writing so that there's no misunderstanding that declassification has in fact occurred.

EDIT:  See below for a statutory requirement (44 USC §2203).

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> ANY DOCUMENT between the beginning and end of his presidency??  That's as vague of a warrant as you can get, particularly for a former president and prospective challenger to the current regime.  
> 
> Can you not just be honest about this?


There's an entire statute dealing with presidential records -- the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which defines "Presidential records" as:




> The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably seg*regable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term—
> 
> (A)includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but
> 
> (B)does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) [1] of title 5, United States Code); (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified. 
>  44 USC §2201(2)


"Personal records" is defined as:




> The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof,[2] of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—
> 
> (A)diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
> 
> (B)materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
> 
> (C)materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.  44 USC §2201(3)


The Act further provides, "The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."  44 USC §2202

Here's an interesting tidbit from §2203:




> (a)Through the implementation of records management controls and other necessary actions, the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of the President’s constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are *adequately documented* and that such records are preserved and maintained as Presidential records pursuant to the requirements of this section and other provisions of law.


"Adequately documented" -- gee, ya think that just might be referring to _putting it in writing?_

----------


## Invisible Man

> I'd like to see the CFR reference which codifies this requirement.


Here you go.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...ty-information

Declassifying documents involves a lot more than just somebody who has the authority to declassify them deciding to treat them like they're not classified anymore without telling anyone they're going to do that.

Unless Trump himself ever overrode this executive order. I'm pretty sure he didn't, or that fact would be an important aspect of this story. And if he chose not to, then that's on him.

----------


## 69360

> "Simple" is damned right.  Digital is FAR worse that hard copies.
> 
> How can you even make that argument?  I expected better.


You misunderstand. Hard copies is easier to find and prove.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Good grief, three pages of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This is a politically motivated "hit".

If there is nothing at all to prosecute in this, then they will move on to something else.

Sooner or later, they'll find *something* and achieve their goal: keeping Trump legally off the ballot in 2024.

Throwing him in jail for some manufactured crime is a whole lot easier than rigging yet another presidential election.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Good grief, three pages of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
> 
> This is a politically motivated "hit".
> 
> If there is nothing at all to prosecute in this, then they will move on to something else.
> 
> Sooner or later, they'll find *something* and achieve their goal: keeping Trump legally off the ballot in 2024.
> 
> Throwing him in jail for some manufactured crime is a whole lot easier than rigging yet another presidential election.


From what I've heard, they say he couldn't be on the ballots.

What if he told everybody to write him in?

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

Since no one would know what was or was not in the boxes, I guess we will just have to take the FBI's word for it.

----------


## dannno

> Uh, you know, that isn't exactly what that word means...


My point was it was better than documentation, I was hoping somebody would try to deny that. If he had just written "Declassified" on the sides of the boxes with magic marker and stuck them in some random storage locker, you would have to figure out who did it. Did President Trump authorize it? Was it his handwriting? Was it Trump who had access to the storage locker? The questions go on and on. 

When the President takes classified documents TO HIS OWN HOUSE, then there is no question that the documents had been declassified, which he had the power to do. He can literally say it in his own head "These documents are now declassified" and not tell anybody and take them home. He is the sole authority on whether that occurred. If you ever want to know whether the documents were declassified, the only person who would know is Donald Trump.

----------


## Invisible Man

> When the President takes classified documents TO HIS OWN HOUSE, then there is no question that the documents had been declassified


Are you saying that the mere act of a president treating the documents as if they are not classified is the same as declassifying them? You can't honestly believe this.

Does Trump himself even claim that he declassified the documents?

----------


## dannno

> Are you saying that the mere act of a president treating the documents as if they are not classified is the same as declassifying them? You can't honestly believe this.
> 
> Does Trump himself even claim that he declassified the documents?


Yes, 100%, and yes, he did.




> Yes. He said himself he declassified them.
> 
> When the President is negotiating with a foreign leader, let's say they are negotiating a nuclear weapons treaty.. he doesn't have to go through a "process" to declassify certain materials in the middle of the negotiation. The President has ultimate authority on what gets declassified. There is no higher authority on this matter.
> 
> Some "lawyer" you are.

----------


## Invisible Man

> When the President is negotiating with a foreign leader, let's say they are negotiating a nuclear weapons treaty.. he doesn't have to go through a "process" to declassify certain materials in the middle of the negotiation.


Why do you believe this?

----------


## ClaytonB

> Good grief, three pages of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
> 
> This is a politically motivated "hit".
> 
> If there is nothing at all to prosecute in this, then they will move on to something else.
> 
> Sooner or later, they'll find *something* and achieve their goal: keeping Trump legally off the ballot in 2024.
> 
> Throwing him in jail for some manufactured crime is a whole lot easier than rigging yet another presidential election.


But you have to reject the black-pill. The ominous "They". Always mentioned in hushed-tones. "They" could be sitting in the creepy white van across the street. "They" could gag&bag anybody anytime, anywhere. And so on and so forth. At some point, we have to choose sides and prepare to take this to the final limit. I'm on the side of the good and the true -- that means I'm on the side of Jesus. And I know I'm not the only one. By a long shot. The Beast system is literally baiting the book of Revelation. So be it. "They" know just as well as I do who wins that fight. Bring it on...

----------


## TheTexan

> But you have to reject the black-pill. The ominous "They". Always mentioned in hushed-tones. "They" could be sitting in the creepy white van across the street. "They" could gag&bag anybody anytime, anywhere. And so on and so forth. At some point, we have to choose sides and prepare to take this to the final limit. I'm on the side of the good and the true -- that means I'm on the side of Jesus. And I know I'm not the only one. By a long shot. The Beast system is literally baiting the book of Revelation. So be it. "They" know just as well as I do who wins that fight. Bring it on...


One good thing that came out of Trump's presidency, is it's pretty clear now who "they" are.  At least to me it's clear.

----------


## Invisible Man

> One good thing that came out of Trump's presidency, is it's pretty clear now who "they" are.  At least to me it's clear.


White people?

----------


## TheTexan

> White people?


Close, but complete opposite

----------


## dannno

> Why do you believe this?


Because that is what the Constitution says?

----------


## acptulsa

> Because that is what the Constitution says?


You are at your comedic best this evening.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Because that is what the Constitution says?


Can you quote the part you are referring to?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> There's an entire statute dealing with presidential records -- the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which defines "Presidential records" as:
> 
> 
> 
> "Personal records" is defined as:
> 
> 
> 
> The Act further provides, "The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."  44 USC §2202
> ...


And yet we again return to the unanswered question as to what differentiates HRC's crimes from DJT's.  Thank you for  citing chapter and verse, reverend.  You still haven't answered the actual question, however.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You misunderstand. Hard copies is easier to find and prove.


And digital is FAR easier to capture remotely.  

You're not making a case.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Here you go.
> 
> https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...ty-information
> 
> Declassifying documents involves a lot more than just somebody who has the authority to declassify them deciding to treat them like they're not classified anymore without telling anyone they're going to do that.
> 
> Unless Trump himself ever overrode this executive order. I'm pretty sure he didn't, or that fact would be an important aspect of this story. And if he chose not to, then that's on him.


For the record, this was an aside.  

However, you're gonna have to do better than an Obama WH website citation to prove to me that a president cannot de facto declassify records _a la carte_, which frankly makes sense in your convoluted statist paradigm.  Why couldn't/shouldn't a president have final authority to de/classify state secrets?  One could conceive of myriad situations in which it makes sense for a head of state to declassify state secrets...

----------


## TheTexan



----------


## Invisible Man

> For the record, this was an aside.  
> 
> However, you're gonna have to do better than an Obama WH website citation to prove to me that a president cannot de facto declassify records _a la carte_, which frankly makes sense in your convoluted statist paradigm.


Can you please quote me saying anything indicating I had a statist paradigm?




> Why couldn't/shouldn't a president have final authority to de/classify state secrets? One could conceive of myriad situations in which it makes sense for a head of state to declassify state secrets...


At no point in this conversation has anybody suggested that a president doesn't have that authority. The question is whether or not it is a fact that Trump had actually declassified all of the classified documents that he had at his house. If he had not declassified them when he was president, then it's not something he would still have the authority to do at a later point when he no longer is.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> And yet we again return to the unanswered question as to what differentiates HRC's crimes from DJT's.  Thank you for  citing chapter and verse, reverend.  You still haven't answered the actual question, however.


You asked me why the two cases were treated differently, and I gave you my best answer. You didn't ask what the differences in the crimes were.  To opine on that I'd need to review what HRC actually did and research the statutes that HRC allegedly violated, something I don't have time to do right now.

Please understand, I'm no fan of HRC; she's despicable.

----------


## TheTexan

Interesting case from Tucker's monologue of Douglas Mackey.   Arrested for being a far-right twitter troll lol.  Facing ten years in prison for a tweet

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## Anti Federalist

> 


He's cuter when he and his butt buddies are dressed up as dominatrix dogs.

----------


## 69360

> And digital is FAR easier to capture remotely.  
> 
> You're not making a case.


I'm not trying to make a case. I don't even care that much honestly.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yes but  @Swordsmyth (even though Trump and the Clintons were life-long friends) Congress, Antifa, FBI, etc. etc. etc. "wouldn't let him". Any good Trumpsupporter knows that.


We have it well documented that his cabinet members (who had to be approved by the Senate) thwarted him at every turn on issues far less sensitive than the Clintons.
To even suggest that the "independent" DoJ would have prosecuted her on his orders is a joke.
The entire swamp has to be drained and he is making lots of progress on that already.

----------


## vita3

That Southern DC Senator Trump appointed as first Attorney General was a real go getter on DC Crime


Oh wait, no he wasnt!

Hoodwinked again & again

----------


## vita3

Jeff Sessions!

Served 20 years as Senator before Trump hired him to clean up DC

Hoodwinked

----------


## Todd

Not sure if this has been posted, but here is the official Warrant.  I haven't read it yet, but it doesn't look good that some of the boxes were labeled TOP SECRET.  

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/11172...ar-a-lago-home

----------


## pcosmar

> Not sure if this has been posted, but here is the official Warrant.  I haven't read it yet, but it doesn't look good that some of the boxes were labeled TOP SECRET.  
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/11172...ar-a-lago-home


You mean the Boxes that were sealed in that room by the DOJ weeks before?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> *"YOUR WELCOME" with Michael Malice #220: Robert Barnes*
> _Michael Malice (“YOUR WELCOME”) invites constitutional and civil rights lawyer, Robert Barnes, onto the show to discuss the FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago, the “strange” names associated with the raid, and Trump’s reaction to it all. Robert also gives us his legal insight into the Alex Jones trial, and the Orwellian nature of it all._
> https://odysee.com/@MichaelMalice:6/...l-malice-220:9


//

----------


## vita3

Maybe Trump could name Mitt Romney as his clean up the swamp Attorney General if elected again.

Not exactly the  GO-GETTER PROSECUTER 20 year Senator JEff  Session was, but will surely get results!!!!

----------


## nobody's_hero

Jimmy has been my ride-to-work-entertainment in the car these past few weeks.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> We have it well documented that his cabinet members (who had to be approved by the Senate) thwarted him at every turn on issues far less sensitive than the Clintons.
> To even suggest that the "independent" DoJ would have prosecuted her on his orders is a joke.
> The entire swamp has to be drained and he is making lots of progress on that already.


Even those not requiring Senate (McConnell) consent required FBI (Swamp) consent as this comment from another site demonstrates:




> There’s a great (but long) article at CTH that explains the  importance to the un-elected cabal (aka invisible government) of  controlling the FBI.
>  Other than the obvious favoritism of RATS and persecution of MAGA, the FBI is in charge of all security clearances.
>  This gives them the power, over time, to fully populate almost every agency with their puppets.
>  Many of President Trump’s nominees were blocked in this fashion; but this has been going on a long time.
>  The article also pinpoints a key victory of the invisible government  in setting up “Intelligence agencies” as a 4th branch of government was  the Patriot Act ... orchestrated largely by Dick Cheney in the aftermath  of a certain VERY LARGE FALSE FLAG.
> https://theconservativetreehouse.com...the-documents/


The only exception is the military.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Not sure if this has been posted, but here is the official Warrant.  I haven't read it yet, but it doesn't look good that some of the boxes were labeled TOP SECRET.  
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/11172...ar-a-lago-home


LOL

----------


## dannno

This sounds like one of those stories where the content 'pretty much' doesn't match the headline.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...panetta-2022-8




> *Former CIA director says Trump ally's claim that he could instantly declassify documents is 'pretty much BS'
> *Aug 16, 2022
> 
> The former CIA director dismissed a claim by a Donald Trump ally that the former president had the power to instantly declassify government documents, calling it "pretty much BS."
> 
> 
> Leon Panetta, who served as the defense secretary and CIA Director under the Obama administration, told CNN's Jake Tapper on Monday that there is a process for declassifying confidential government information and requires other agencies to sign off on it. 
> 
> 
> ...



"They [agencies] have something to say"

"There is a process"

Sounds like that process is typically followed so that Presidents have some guidance when they are declassifying, but it's all an optional step they can take to ensure the agencies have the chance to let them know if they are releasing something that could potentially be harmful, in their opinion.

The Times and Panetta are trying to make people think that this procedure is required using weasel words like "pretty much" and "rarely".

----------


## vita3

Have to give the ringmasters credit, America is talking about this rather than "our side" Ukraine, shelling Nuclear Power Plant.

HOCUS POCUS BITCHES

----------


## acptulsa

> Sounds like that process is typically followed so that Presidents have some guidance when they are declassifying, but it's all an optional step they can take to ensure the agencies have the chance to let them know if they are releasing something that could potentially be harmful, in their opinion.


So, let's declassify something and not tell anyone.  Let's keep the fact that it's no longer secret a secret.  I can't tell you if it's classified or not because whether it's classified is more classified than it is.

What possible purpose could that serve but entrapment?  That, or getting Chinese spies off the hook.  Oh, I like this spy for China, so I'll say that hasn't been secret since I was president.  But that one never gave me a bribe Christmas present so the fact that the secrets they gave to China aren't secret will remain my little secret.

After all, nothing says Fiscal Responsibility like having thousands of federal employees guarding something they might as well email to Alex Jones.

It's asinine.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> So, let's declassify something and not tell anyone.  Let's keep the fact that it's no longer secret a secret.  I can't tell you if it's classified or not because whether it's classified is more classified than it is.
> 
> What possible purpose could that serve but entrapment?  That, or getting Chinese spies off the hook.  Oh, I like this spy for China, so I'll say that hasn't been secret since I was president.  But that one never gave me a bribe Christmas present so the fact that the secrets they gave to China aren't secret will remain my little secret.
> 
> After all, nothing says Fiscal Responsibility like having thousands of federal employees guarding something they might as well email to Alex Jones.
> 
> It's asinine.


At the very least the documents would then have to be stamped with "Declassified" or something similar.

----------


## Mach

The Propaganda Unit



FBI Unit Leading Mar-a-Lago Probe Earlier Ran Discredited Trump-Russia Investigation

https://www.realclearinvestigations....ax_848582.html




> Former federal prosecutor and Trump administration official Kash Patel said the FBI may have a personal interest – and a potential conflict – in seizing the records stored by Trump.
> 
> He noted that Trump in October 2020 authorized the declassification of all the investigative records generated from the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane as well as the Clinton email investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," and he said that the FBI may have confiscated some of those records in its raid, ensuring they won't be made public. In addition, he said, the agency may be digging for other documents to try to justify, retroactively, their questionable, politically-tinged 2016 opening of the Trump-Russia "collusion" case, which came up embarrassingly short on evidence.
> 
> "Tragically, the same FBI characters that were involved in Russiagate are the same counterintel guys running this ‘national security investigation' against Trump," said Patel, who deposed Crossfire Hurricane team members as a former House Intelligence Committee investigator.
> 
> Patel noted that the Horowitz report indicated FBI analyst Auten hid exculpatory information about Trump's adviser Page from other investigators and the FISA court, which should be more than enough to keep him at arm's length from other investigations involving Trump.
> 
> "And to top it all off, this guy admits [to Horowitz's investigators] he's unrepentant about his role in making up the biggest hoax in election history, and Wray still lets him be a supervisor at the FBI," he said. "It's just insane."



Director Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Committee (over 3 hours long, and says nothing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPj5yPkXnc&t=9128s

----------


## acptulsa

> He noted that Trump in October 2020 authorized the declassification of all the investigative records generated from the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane as well as the Clinton email investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," and he said that the FBI may have confiscated some of those records in its raid, ensuring they won't be made public.


That's what you get for promising to drain the swamp, and then going all swampy.  He could have released stuff like that.  He promised to release stuff like that.  Instead, what?  He wanted to set up his own blackmail network?  He had his chance to cut the puppet strings and put the marionettes in jail, but instead he tried to grab the strings so they'd dance to _his_ tune?

The untouchable Alpha Very Stable Genius overreached, and failed.  Not a selling point.  Someone who couldn't foresee this move isn't even a competent checkers player.

----------


## dannno

> So, let's declassify something and not tell anyone.  Let's keep the fact that it's no longer secret a secret.  I can't tell you if it's classified or not because whether it's classified is more classified than it is.
> 
> What possible purpose could that serve but entrapment?  That, or getting Chinese spies off the hook.  Oh, I like this spy for China, so I'll say that hasn't been secret since I was president.  But that one never gave me a bribe Christmas present so the fact that the secrets they gave to China aren't secret will remain my little secret.
> 
> After all, nothing says Fiscal Responsibility like having thousands of federal employees guarding something they might as well email to Alex Jones.
> 
> It's asinine.


If you read the article, Trump basically said anything he took to his house was de-facto declassified. So they knew.

----------


## dannno

> At the very least the documents would then have to be stamped with "Declassified" or something similar.


Is that in the Constitution somewhere?

----------


## Invisible Man

> Is that in the Constitution somewhere?


Don't you think you should answer that first?




> Because that is what the Constitution says?





> Can you quote the part you are referring to?

----------


## acptulsa

> If you read the article, Trump basically said anything he took to his house was de-facto declassified. So they knew.


Oh?  So every department with classified materials sent someone to help him pack?

They knew what was carted out was declassified, but they knew not what was carried out.  Therefore, they didn't know any of the things I suggested they just might need to know.  Einstein.

You're not even _trying_ to think this through.  You're just grasping at excuses for your golden calf.

----------


## dannno

> Don't you think you should answer that first?


The Constitution gives supreme power to the President since the President is the commander in chief of the military. Classification of documents is related to national security, which is a function of the military. 




> The President’s authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority.
> 
> Although I expect to be able to provide the advance notice contemplated by section 8009 in most
> situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise in which I must act promptly while protecting
> certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. In these situations, I will treat these
> sections in a manner consistent with my constitutional authorities, including as Commander in
> Chief.
> 
> 
> Statement by President Donald J. Trump on Signing H.R. 244 into Law (May 5, 2017)






> The Supreme Court has never directly addressed the extent to which Congress may constrain the executive branch’s power in this area. Citing the President’s constitutional role as Commanderin-Chief, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated in dicta that “[the President’s] authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from
> this Constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit
> congressional grant.”


https://sgp.fas.org/crs/secrecy/RS21900.pdf

----------


## dannno

> Oh?  So every department with classified materials sent someone to help him pack?
> 
> They knew what was carted out was declassified, but they knew not what was carried out.  Therefore, they didn't know any of the things I suggested they just might need to know.  Einstein.
> 
> You're not even _trying_ to think this through.  You're just grasping at excuses for your golden calf.


No, I'm following the Constitution and allowing the duly elected representative of the people to decide.  You are trying to insinuate that un-elected bureaucrats should have more power than an elected official, which is a deep state, leftist talking point.

----------


## acptulsa

> No, I'm following the Constitution and allowing the duly elected representative of the people to decide.  You are trying to insinuate that un-elected bureaucrats should have more power than an elected official, which is a deep state, leftist talking point.


No, dannno, I'm not.  It's a ridiculous straw man.

I'm not questioning whether the president can declassify material, nor whether he (or she) should be able to.  I'm merely asking a tree-falls-in-the-woods question.  If he declassifies something and doesn't tell anyone, is it declassified?

Do you believe in the rule of law or don't you?  I hope you don't go around self-identifying as a libertarian, because you love power much too much.  Either everyone in government goes on treating it as secret, which is yet another terrible waste of taxpayer money, or they try to guess what he declassified and let him choose who gets prosecuted or not.  Why?  Because he's the only person in the world who knows what is, and what is not.

And what about historic research?  Yes, you may research this history, and keep the citizenry informed.  Only you can't, because no one knows that, and won't let you see it.

There is no other point I can see to secretly making something not secret but to selectively entrap people.  None.  So, why are you fervently defending Trump's right to engage in entrapment?

Will what you say get him off scot-free in the end?  Probably.  Does he deserve what he's getting in the meantime?  Damned right he does.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

You keep taking contradictory positions in your zeal to defend this clown.  He does something you don't like and can't defend?  This isn't a one-man government.  There are other people who must be considered, purely as a practical matter.  He needs to be excused for acting unilaterally when that's clearly inappropriate (again, as a practical matter, because _people shouldn't be put in that unjust position_)?  Suddenly this _is_ a one-man government.

I can't believe you have been here fifteen years and still think we would let you get away with that.  Pick a side and stick to it.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

It's unclear whether the President can unilaterally declassify material dealing with nuclear weapons:




> For Restricted Data, the power of the president to declassify is even less clear. The updated version of the Atomic Energy Act that is currently on the books has detailed descriptions of how to remove information from the Restricted Data category. That process is initiated by the Department of Energy (as successor to the Atomic Energy Commission), not the president. The only explicit role the president has in this process is that if the Department of Energy and Department of Defense disagree on whether something should be declassified, the president acts as the tie-breaker. The president is given other explicit powers regarding Restricted Data, like the ability to direct the Department of Defense to share it with allied nations under certain circumstances (like planning for mutual defense, such as with NATO), but not declassification. The fact that the law does not explicitly give presidents the power to blanket declassify things, but does give them a role in declassification and other matters regarding Restricted Data, suggests that Congress’s intent was not to allow the president to declassify Restricted Data at will. 
> 
> Unlike National Defense Information, the procedures for identifying and declassifying Restricted Data are defined in statute, not in executive order. Whatever assumptions one might make about whether presidents need to follow their own executive orders (or the executive orders of previous presidents) or not thus get thrown out the window here as well. That doesn’t totally resolve the constitutional situation: maybe you could try to argue that Congress doesn’t have the power to punish a president for releasing Restricted Data, because that might interfere with his operations as commander-in-chief. Or, one could argue whether the Restricted Data clause is inherently unconstitutional, which as we’ve seen is not a new argument. Either way, it is a different issue at heart with Restricted Data than it is with National Defense Information. 
> 
> Of course, there may not be any Restricted Data in the documents from Mar-a-Lago. The category of “documents related to nuclear weapons” is vast, and not all such things would necessarily contain Restricted Data. For example, information about the North Korean, Iranian, or Israeli nuclear programs might be classified because of what they reveal about American intelligence sources or foreign intentions, not because they contain “nuclear secrets,” per se. And, of course, there may be no nuclear secrets of any sort in the seized documents at all: the tip might be a false one. 
> 
> One interesting consequence, though, of Trump’s current defense is that if he did truly declassify these documents, then they ought to be obtainable, at least in part, under the Freedom of Information Act. Are Trump, his lawyers, and his defenders suggesting that these documents should be publishable? That documents that the military, justice, and intelligence communities appear to think are important enough to keep controlled should just be released? (There are potential work-arounds here, like applying controlled-but-unclassified categorizations to them, but that’s another can of worms.) 
> 
> It does lead to the complicated question of “graymail” though: if Trump were to be prosecuted for these documents, and did claim that he had declassified them, and was successful in this claim, would this not mean the documents were truly declassified and thus could be compelled to release? Depending on the sensitivity of the documents, would that be enough to convince the government to avoid prosecution by itself? Without knowing more about the contents of the documents, this is all very idle speculation, but they do raise a lot of genuinely thorny and genuinely novel legal problems.


https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trum...s-unclassified

The term "Restricted Data" refers to all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power.  The referenced article discusses certain issues with the scope of this definition.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's unclear whether the President can unilaterally declassify material dealing with nuclear weapons:
> 
> 
> https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trum...s-unclassified
> 
> The term "Restricted Data" refers to all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power.  The referenced article discusses certain issues with the scope of this definition.


These apologists don't seem to care about Congress.  They don't even adhere to Nixon's, "If the president does it, then it's not illegal.". They figure that does apply, but only to Republican presidents.

----------


## TheTexan

> These apologists don't seem to care about Congress.  They don't even adhere to Nixon's, "If the president does it, then it's not illegal.". They figure that does apply, but only to Republican presidents.


Has anyone's home ever been raided over possession of classified material?  President or otherwise.

----------


## Ender

> Have to give the ringmasters credit, America is talking about this rather than "our side" Ukraine, shelling Nuclear Power Plant.
> 
> HOCUS POCUS BITCHES


Yep- just more Kabuki Theatre to keep your eye off what's really going on.

----------


## dannno

> I'm not questioning whether the president can declassify material, nor whether he (or she) should be able to.  I'm merely asking a tree-falls-in-the-woods question.  If he declassifies something and doesn't tell anyone, is it declassified?


Trump didn't do that, but yes, he could. He said anything he took to his house was de-facto declassified. So he told people. But he didn't even have to do that. He went above an beyond what was required.




> Patel told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that, as president, Trump had the power to "literally stand over a set of documents and say, 'These are now declassified,'" as can be seen in a clip shared by Mediaite.
> 
> "This is a key fact that most Americans are missing: President Trump, as a sitting president, is a unilateral authority for declassification," Patel said.



In other words, if anybody has any question as to whether something was declassified or not, one simply only needs to ask Trump himself.

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## Invisible Man

> In other words, if anybody has any question as to whether something was declassified or not, one simply only needs to ask Trump himself.


Trump is no longer president, so he no longer has the authority to declassify anything. So he would have to claim that he declassified them when he was president. But he could just lie about that, unless declassifying things involves more than just some former president claiming that he declassified things back when he was president without telling anyone.

----------


## acptulsa

Yeah, good luck.

Ever see _Inherit the Wind_?




> Matthew Harrison Brady:
> I do not think about things I do not think about.
> 
> Henry Drummond:
> Do you ever think about things that you do think about?

----------


## dannno

> Trump is no longer president, so he no longer has the authority to declassify anything. So he would have to claim that he declassified them when he was president. But he could just lie about that, unless declassifying things involves more than just some former president claiming that he declassified things back when he was president without telling anyone.


He declassified them while he was President. The President doesn't have to tell anybody. For example, if they are negotiating with a foreign leader, they may have to discuss classified information. For that purpose, the information is temporarily declassified so that he can discuss it with the foreign leader. Then it is reclassified for all intents and purposes. That all happens in the President's noggin, and nobody else needs to know. That is in the Constitution. 

I'm not really sure I've heard a strong argument for having information in the government classified in the first place. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I also like the idea that the government be fully transparent.

So you may be arguing with the wrong person.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

> He declassified them while he was President. The President doesn't have to tell anybody. For example, if they are negotiating with a foreign leader, they may have to discuss classified information. For that purpose, the information is temporarily declassified so that he can discuss it with the foreign leader. Then it is reclassified for all intents and purposes. That all happens in the President's noggin, and nobody else needs to know. That is in the Constitution. 
> 
> I'm not really sure I've heard a strong argument for having information in the government classified in the first place. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I also like the idea that the government be fully transparent.
> 
> So you may be arguing with the wrong person.


There is a video in this thread that has Robert Barnes the attorney in it and he states that Trump can declassify documents.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

@danno go to the 7:45 mark.https://odysee.com/@MichaelMalice:6/...l-malice-220:9

----------


## dannno

> There is a video in this thread that has Robert Barnes the attorney in it and he states that Trump can declassify documents.


Kash Patel said the same thing I said - what I like to call the Michael Scott "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!!" theory on the President declassifying documents. He can literally just stand over a bunch of documents and declassify them, without doing anything else. He doesn't have to tell anybody, he doesn't have to re-label anything. 

These people attacking Trump are trying to promote the idea that un-elected bureaucrats have more power over classification than the duly elected President.

----------


## Invisible Man

> He declassified them while he was President. The President doesn't have to tell anybody.


Then how are people supposed to know whether or not any given document is classified?




> For example, if they are negotiating with a foreign leader, they may have to discuss classified information. For that purpose, the information is temporarily declassified so that he can discuss it with the foreign leader. Then it is reclassified for all intents and purposes. That all happens in the President's noggin, and nobody else needs to know. That is in the Constitution.


But that's not what you're saying happened here is it?

And if that is what happened, and these documents, as you just said, got re-classified, then that would mean that they were still classified after Trump left office, when he kept them in his home and was no longer president.




> I'm not really sure I've heard a strong argument for having information in the government classified in the first place. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I also like the idea that the government be fully transparent.


But that's not what you've been saying this whole time.

----------


## fcreature

> If he declassifies something and doesn't tell anyone, is it declassified?


Yes, absolutely.

Please don't take this response to be an agreement of your premise. I think it's very likely some / many / all of the documents seized were declassified either in writing or otherwise witnessed. 

Anyway, the issue of classification is just a red-herring and a way to justify the usage of a general warrant.

If it were truly about classified documents, why seize so many documents with no classification markings? This is the deep state at work.

----------


## fcreature

> And if that is what happened, and these documents, as you just said, got re-classified, then that would mean that they were still classified after Trump left office, when he kept them in his home and was no longer president.


The Constitution doesn't take very kindly to ex post facto "crimes"... would love to see them run with kind of argument. Would expose them even more.

----------


## Invisible Man

> The Constitution doesn't take very kindly to ex post facto "crimes"... would love to see them run with kind of argument. Would expose them even more.


This wouldn't be an ex post facto crime.

But which part of the Constitution are you referring to?

----------


## fcreature

> This wouldn't be an ex post facto crime.


So let me get this straight. 

Taking documents that are not classified and already in the possession of someone, then classifying them and sending the police to arrest anyone who is already in possession of them, *is not* creating a crime out of a legal action previously committed?

Weird...

Actions like these were deep grievances of our founding fathers. The United States has a rich history of rejecting such nonsense.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

President Trump declassified a number of documents related to the Deep State’s attempted coup of his administration only days before he left office.  More than a foot-high pile of documents were declassified by President Trump at this time.  The Deep State FBI reportedly held on to these documents and would not release them up to that time.  This was reported by Lou Dobbs on FOX Business on January 14, 2021.  (Note that The Gateway Pundit was noted in this segment as well for its reporting on the Jan 6 Capitol protests where we already knew that there were bad actors involved.)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/exclusive-trump-rico-case-clinton-appointed-judge-allowed-government-insert-trump-rico-case-place-comey-mccabe-strzok-page-clinesmith/

----------


## dannno

> Then how are people supposed to know whether or not any given document is classified?


Check the classification. Then if you are still unsure, ask the President. 





> But that's not what you're saying happened here is it?


No, I'm using it as an example of why the President has complete discretion over classification, period, according to the Constitution, and there is no other entity that has more power in this particular arena.




> But that's not what you've been saying this whole time.


My point is I'm arguing against people who seem believe that the government and classified documents are some sacred institution. I'm just letting you know I don't feel that way, but I'm still right about the law, and you aren't.

----------


## Mach

What it comes down to is, Trump and some of his people, including Kash Patel (Patel has joined the board of directors for the former presidents media company, Trump Media & Technology Group), were going to publish info on declassified documents so the public could easily see what was really going on during all of those past "investigations" etc... then the FBI stepped in and made sure that didn't happen.


https://www.justsecurity.org/82723/t...ied-documents/

----------


## Invisible Man

> Check the classification. Then if you are still unsure, ask the President.


The current president, right? Not a former one.

----------


## acptulsa

> What it comes down to is, Trump and some of his people, including Kash Patel (Patel has joined the board of directors for the former president’s media company, Trump Media & Technology Group), were going to publish info on declassified documents so the public could easily see what was really going on during all of those past "investigations" etc... then the FBI stepped in and made sure that didn't happen.
> 
> 
> https://www.justsecurity.org/82723/t...ied-documents/


That would certainly play well in Peoria.  One wonders why Chessmaster Trump didn't come right out and say it, if it were true.

One would also wonder why we haven't seen one page of it in nineteen months.  If you're going to do something like that, procrastination just gives your enemies time to do what was allegedly done--devise a strategy to stop you, and carry it out.  I can't imagine a reason to delay, unless one were less interested in turning up the heat and boiling off the swamp, and more interested in convincing someone to pay you not to do it.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Taking documents that are not classified and already in the possession of someone, then classifying them and sending the police to arrest anyone who is already in possession of them, *is not* creating a crime out of a legal action previously committed?


Huh?

Are you trying to pretend that you're saying the same thing dannno said in the post I was replying to?

----------


## fcreature

> My point is I'm arguing against people who seem believe that the government and classified documents are some sacred institution. I'm just letting you know I don't feel that way, but I'm still right about the law, and you aren't.


Classification is an abusive tool used to protect those in power and to weaponize information against the public.

It's really weird seeing libertarians argue that unelected bureaucrats can usurp the power of the people by denying the executive branch's sole authority over this issue. Despite any problems folks here have with the Orange Man, he spent 4 years declassifying and trying to get that declassified material released to the public - information that has been weaponized against them. 

Unfortunately he failed in doing so, and now the deep state intends on completing the goal of making an example out of the man. The people will be made to understand that they do not have permission to form a government challenging the status quo.

----------


## fcreature

> Are you trying to pretend that you're saying the same thing dannno said in the post I was replying to?


Huh? 

Are you going to answer the question?

----------


## Invisible Man

> Huh? 
> 
> Are you going to answer the question?


I didn't intend to, since it had nothing to do with anything we were talking about.

But to answer it, yes of course the story you made up would be creating a crime out of a legal action previously committed.

----------


## Invisible Man

> denying the executive branch's sole authority over this issue.


Can you quote any libertarians denying that?




> Despite any problems folks here have with the Orange Man, he spent 4 years declassifying and trying to get that declassified material released to the public


Riiiiiiiiighht.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's really weird seeing libertarians argue that unelected bureaucrats can usurp the power of the people by denying the executive branch's sole authority over this issue.


I dare you to come up with a single quote from this thread that could make that charge stick, that could breathe life into that strawman.  There is a process, and it's necessary.  You and certain others want everyone to believe Trump can change engine oil without taking out the drain plug, can make an omelet without bothering to break an egg.

I hope you'll pardon me for being dubious that the right to cook an omelet means one can wave their hands over three eggs, and get one without so much as touching a whisk.




> Despite any problems folks here have with the Orange Man, he spent 4 years declassifying and trying to get that declassified material released to the public - information that has been weaponized against them. 
> 
> Unfortunately he failed in doing so...


Why?  What kept him?

I still say the gaping hole in this theory is, there's no possible reason why not one single page came out, not one hint was given that they might come out, except that the person holding all this lovely stuff was, like a blackmailer, still taking bids for his silence.

I am so sick of hearing all about how our beloved high-energy go-getter Alpha woulda and was a gonna, but got stopped.  He could have done it in a seventeen part monthly serial by now.

----------


## Mach

Partial unsealing may be coming, in a week... could only find this on foreign sites.


https://www.theedgemarkets.com/artic...led-judge-says


(Aug 19): Portions of the FBI affidavit used to secure a search warrant for former President Donald Trumps Mar-a-Lago estate should be unsealed, a federal judge in Florida said.

US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart on Thursday said the Justice Department hadnt met its burden for keeping the entire document sealed and asked the government to propose by noon on Aug. 25 what information in the affidavit should be kept secret.

Im not prepared to find that the affidavit should be fully sealed, Reinhart said during a hearing in West Palm Beach on a request from news media organizations and others to publicly release the affidavit.

Reinhart made the remarks moments after Jay Bratt, the Justice Departments counterintelligence chief, told him that the ongoing investigation would be severely compromised if the affidavit is released, adding that a line-by-line redaction of the document was unrealistic.

Bratt said the investigation is in the very early stages and that the affidavit is very detailed, lengthy and contains substantial grand jury information. He said the DOJ is concerned that its release will identify names of agents and identities of witnesses.

The judge said the government is free to propose that everything be redacted but he is unlikely to agree. He said he will propose his own redactions if he disagrees with DOJs proposals.
Warrant Released

----------


## Sonny Tufts

At the risk of providing a link to a CNN report (some Trump lemmings wouldn't believe CNN if it reported that 2 + 2 = 4), this one reports that 18 former Trump officials see the claim that he had a standing order to declassify anything he took to Mar-a-Lago as B. S., ludicrous, or ridiculous.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/18/polit...als/index.html

Then there's the requirement of the Presidential Records Act that Trump take steps to document decisions like this.

For all the Trump supporters out there: tell me with a straight face that if Obama had done the same things as Trump has done, you wouldn't be calling for his head on a spike.

----------


## dannno

> At the risk of providing a link to a CNN report (some Trump lemmings wouldn't believe CNN if it reported that 2 + 2 = 4), this one reports that 18 former Trump officials see the claim that he had a standing order to declassify anything he took to Mar-a-Lago as B. S., ludicrous, or ridiculous.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/18/polit...als/index.html


"Many of the officials spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity"

Ahh... good old step 1.. they combined it with step 5 this time.

1. Anonymous sources


2. Wrap-up Smear


3. Schiff-in-a-SCIF (I saw it but you can't)


4. Use AI to hide opposing narratives on social media


5. List of Liars (experts)


6. Laundry List persuasion 


7. Truth emerges, too late

----------


## Invisible Man

> All senior Federal officials have lifetime TS clearance. The reasons are obvious -- if you can't trust somebody for life, you can't trust them for some number of years. I can't recall where I heard this, I think it was a Snowden interview. Every senior Bush administration official is still read in to this day. They don't "lose their clearance" after leaving office. Clearance can be revoked for other reasons, of course. And even TS clearance is not sufficient to get access to any particular SCI program.



Obviously the duty to keep secrets they know lasts a lifetime. But that wouldn't necessitate lifetime clearance.

----------


## acptulsa

> OK, I mean, if 5%/95% is "support" as you define it, there's nothing further to discuss between us on that topic.


Where did that number come from?

I'm not talking about any manufactured polling among bureaucrats.  I'm talking about the real decision makers, the ones who devised this game.

 I suppose they are handily outnumbered in D.C
 by useful idiots sucking the teat.  I just don't know why anyone would care more about what these tax tickets think.

----------


## ClaytonB

> Obviously the duty to keep secrets they know lasts a lifetime. But that wouldn't necessitate lifetime clearance.


I'm not confusing those two. TS information is regulated by a bunch of laws that prevent all forms of disclosure, whether now or later, whether from documents or from memory, and so on. Those regulations are separate from the clearance-status itself. It is the TS-clearance status that most Federal officials hold for life. That wouldn't give a Trump admin official access to Biden admin SCI info because those are entirely separate programs. But if a Biden admin official wants to read in a Trump admin official (or any former President's administration), they already hold TS clearance and it's just a matter of reading them in. That is my understanding, and no I'm not going to go dig up my references because it's been a few years since I watched the interview where I learned about this and I can't remember how to find the interview. I only recall this important detail from it.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I deny it.
> 
> Nobody that the swamp hates gets that much publicity.  Nobody.
> 
> You sit there and say nobody can deny it, bit you've seen me do so many times.  Whether you see the sense in my reasoning or not, you have not one leg to stand on when you say it can't be done.
> 
> This soap opera is no more real than the WWE, or _The Young and the Restless._ You want to believe.  Fine.  But can't you have a smidgeon of respect for Asoapoperaists?


Even Jimmy Dore, who doesn't even like Trump, can see that this is primarily to keep Trump from running again. My guess is that it takes a lot of effort to keep Trump in line, compared to a dementia-riddled potato like Biden.

You can argue that there's really no point to trying to prohibit Trump from running again, seeing as he did give them what they wanted on a few major issues (regardless of the motives), but I don't think you can argue that they don't want him back.

----------


## ClaytonB

> Where did that number come from?


I don't know. I assume Hannity is competent to get a reliable number for the vote-totals in DC from the Trump/Biden election. If that's not good enough for you, go check the numbers yourself. I don't think you're going to find something different.

----------


## ClaytonB

> Even Jimmy Dore, who doesn't even like Trump, can see that this is primarily to keep Trump from running again. My guess is that it takes a lot of effort to keep Trump in line, compared to a dementia-riddled potato like Biden.
> 
> You can argue that there's really no point to trying to prohibit Trump from running again, seeing as he did give them what they wanted on a few major issues (regardless of the motives), but I don't think you can argue that they don't want him back.


No, no, it's all fake. It's all an elaborate theater. All of Washington DC has gotten together and carefully rehearsed pretending to "hate" Trump while, of course, totally loving him and wanting nothing more than to have him back in the Oval Office. </sarcasm>

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> it's not like they can't be trusted with some documents they had full read-access to while in office and, of course, they retain TS clearance for life.


It's not a question of trust.  It's a question of whether as private citizens they have the legal authority to possess the documents.  The fact is, they don't.  Here's the standard Nondisclosure Agreement people sign to have access to classified information.  Paragraph 7 provides:




> I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classified materials which have, or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or that provided me access to classified information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of sections 793 and/or 1924, title 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.  https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/sf312.pdf


According to the Information Security Oversight Office:




> By tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information. Therefore, the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and
> other federal judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate need not execute the SF 312 as a condition of access to classified information.


https://www.wrc.noaa.gov/wrso/forms/...12_booklet.pdf page 66

Given that the Constitution spells out the qualifications for President, Vice President, and members of Congress, it's likely that requiring such persons to sign a nondisclosure agreement would be unconstitutional.  

The assumption that members of Congress meet the standard of trustworthiness requires a huge leap of faith, but I suppose it's a nesessary one.

----------


## acptulsa

> Even Jimmy Dore, who doesn't even like Trump, can see that this is primarily to keep Trump from running again.


Well, that's his opinion.  Others believe he was hoarding damaging evidence on his rivals.  I think they just did this to piss you off.  There are other theories.




> You can argue that there's really no point to trying to prohibit Trump from running again, seeing as he did give them what they wanted on a few major issues (regardless of the motives), but I don't think you can argue that they don't want him back.


I think you mean that I can't argue that they do want him back.  I don't know if they do or not; all I know is they obviously wanted him to give Republicans the blame for Big Pharma being paid to develop that gene therapy poison, because if they didn't he would have been someone Who Must Not Be Named.  And he clearly wasn't that.  What Michael Malice said.  He's the dam, and when they think the time is right for martial law, he will burst.




> No, no, it's all fake. It's all an elaborate theater. All of Washington DC has gotten together and carefully rehearsed pretending to "hate" Trump while, of course, totally loving him and wanting nothing more than to have him back in the Oval Office. </sarcasm>


Well, whatever.  By D.C. you mean bureaucrats and welfare recipients.  I should have guessed.  I was thinking of the people giving the orders.  I suppose they can find better places than a swamp to live, so fair enough.

You win.  Here.  . Now tell me why pissing off the various employed and unemployed Karens on the D.C. voting rolls should matter to me.  It's not like that's a challenge.  It doesn't take Donald Trump to do it.

----------


## ClaytonB

> It's not a question of trust.  It's a question of whether as private citizens they have the legal authority to possess the documents.  The fact is, they don't.  Here's the standard Nondisclosure Agreement people sign to have access to classified information.  Paragraph 7 provides:
> 
> According to the Information Security Oversight Office:
> 
> Given that the Constitution spells out the qualifications for President, Vice President, and members of Congress, it's likely that requiring such persons to sign a nondisclosure agreement would be unconstitutional.  
> 
> The assumption that members of Congress meet the standard of trustworthine requires a huge leap of faith, but I suppose it's a nesessary one.


I'm not going to debate Federal codes with Random Internet Person. You're digging up links so here you go: 

You know what that is? That's the Thread Trophy of the Thread. You officially WIN. Now beat it. I'm not interested in crossing tin-swords with bots, I am posting in this thread for the few RPFers who have not yet been converted into remote-controlled NPC Beast World Order bots. If somebody sincerely wants me to look up the details regarding post-career TS clearances for senior Federal officials, I'll dig around. In the meantime, take your little trophy and go celebrate or whatever it is you professional bot trolls do...

----------


## acptulsa

They've sure done a fine job of keeping us focused on pissing each other off when we need to be saving the nation instead.

----------


## ClaytonB

> Well, whatever.  By D.C. you mean bureaucrats and welfare recipients.  I should have guessed.  I was thinking of the people giving the orders.  I suppose they can find better places than a swamp to live, so fair enough.


DC is some kind of weird hyper-organism. So, it's both those living on bureaucrat-welfare, and their bosses, whether the visible bosses or the bosses hiding deep in the Swamp.




> You win.  Here.  . Now tell me why pissing off the various employed and unemployed Karens on the D.C. voting rolls should matter to me.  It's not like that's a challenge.  It doesn't take Donald Trump to do it.


If it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to you.

I don't think it's just anger, in fact, I think it's mostly fear. Clearly, Trump's "You're Fired"-image is something that was prepared for this possibility. From interviews, we know that Trump had contemplated the possibility of running for POTUS, way back. So, his image is no accident and it is surely meant to strike fear into the hearts of the DC bureaucracy. And fear can be used as a galvanizing/unifying tool as much as a discoordinating/scattering tool. I have already explained to you that I view _all_ dimensions of the situation. Whether it's good or bad that DC is afraid of Trump is a separate question from the fact (yes, fact!) that one of the single most important reason that Trump's base supports him with the fervor that it does, is that _Trump makes DC afraid/angry_.

Because everyone who doesn't spit acid whenever they see the name "Trump" seems to you to be a Trumper, you keep trying to typecast me as some kind of mindless Trumper. As though I am incapable of objectively understanding why Trump's base supports him, without also blindly supporting him in exactly the same way.

So, I made this for you, and I'll re-post as often as necessary until you get it:

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I'm not going to debate Federal codes with Random Internet Person.


Your response #447 noted, "But God forbid he should possess any documents for which he (still) has lifetime clearance", as if any such clearance allows him to possess the documents.  The fact is, since Trump was never formally granted a security clearance in the first place and since his access to classified material was only the result of being elected to a position requiring such access, it's not correct to say that he has lifetime clearance.

Look at it this way: if he was trusted to have clearance only because he was elected, then he lost that trust when he wasn't reelected.

----------


## acptulsa

> Because everyone who doesn't spit acid whenever they see the name "Trump" seems to you to be a Trumper, you keep trying to typecast me as some kind of mindless Trumper. As though I am incapable of objectively understanding why Trump's base supports him, without also blindly supporting him in exactly the same way.


I mentioned Trump once, to say there are other ways besides him of pissing off Karens.  And here you are trying to cause seizures in any epileptics we may have among us, and blaming me for it.

I didn't call you a Trumper.  Not even once.  Settle down and stop deflecting.  I accused you of being all caught up in a soap opera.  Care to stop posting stupid memes long enough to address that?

----------


## Invisible Man

> I'm not confusing those two. TS information is regulated by a bunch of laws that prevent all forms of disclosure, whether now or later, whether from documents or from memory, and so on. Those regulations are separate from the clearance-status itself. It is the TS-clearance status that most Federal officials hold for life. That wouldn't give a Trump admin official access to Biden admin SCI info because those are entirely separate programs. But if a Biden admin official wants to read in a Trump admin official (or any former President's administration), they already hold TS clearance and it's just a matter of reading them in. That is my understanding, and no I'm not going to go dig up my references because it's been a few years since I watched the interview where I learned about this and I can't remember how to find the interview. I only recall this important detail from it.


I don't have knowledge to comment on that. It may be true.

But it can't be the case that enduring authority to declassify materials would come with that clearance.

If it is a fact that nothing Trump had in his house was classified and he knows this because he personally declassified it when he was president, then he should just come right out and say publicly what he remembers from these formerly classified materials that he wanted to get released to the public, personally declassified, and brought with him to his house for this purpose, while also for some reason never actually publicizing any of it. Does he want us to know about it or not? He can't have it both ways and say it's not classified but it's a secret.

Now, if he did that, one of two things would be the case. Either it would be proven true that none of the documents Trump had were classified as of his leaving office, and any that formerly had been classified no longer were classified, which could be confirmed by the National Declassification Center which would have gotten Trump's declassification orders; or it would be proven that he did possess documents that still were classified and that no records of their having been declassified could be produced either by the National Declassification Center or by Trump himself, in which case he might continue to claim that he declassified them but just kept that declassification a secret that only he knew, to which the question could then be asked, "And how's that working out for you?"

If Trump really wanted some documents to be declassified, he would have taken the declassification of them seriously enough not to be in this situation. And the documents would be public.

----------


## ClaytonB

> I don't have knowledge to comment on that. It may be true.
> 
> But it can't be the case that enduring authority to declassify materials would come with that clearance.
> 
> If it is a fact that nothing Trump had in his house was classified and he knows this because he personally declassified it when he was president, then he should just come right out and say publicly what he remembers from these formerly classified materials that he wanted to get released to the public, personally declassified, and brought with him to his house for this purpose, while also for some reason never actually publicizing any of it. Does he want us to know about it or not? He can't have it both ways and say it's not classified but it's a secret.
> 
> Now, if he did that, one of two things would be the case. Either it would be proven true that none of the documents Trump had were classified as of his leaving office, and any that formerly had been classified no longer were classified, which could be confirmed by the National Declassification Center which would have gotten Trump's declassification orders; or it would be proven that he did possess documents that still were classified and that no records of their having been declassified could be produced either by the National Declassification Center or by Trump himself, in which case he might continue to claim that he declassified them but just kept that declassification a secret that only he knew, to which the question could then be asked, "And how's that working out for you?"
> 
> If Trump really wanted some documents to be declassified, he would have taken the declassification of them seriously enough not to be in this situation. And the documents would be public.


The irony is that, in this thread, I am simultaneously being accused of "being all caught up in a soap opera" while that's literally what you guys are: all caught up in a soap opera. Political theater doesn't come any more obvious than the Mar-a-Lago raid. The Dem/RINO/neocons have calculated that this works to their advantage if they can somehow use some weird Federal legal power to lock Trump out of the 2024 race by force. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. The Clown World news headlines will tell us eventually. But Mar-a-Lago will likely turn out to be the greatest political blunder the Left has ever made if they fail to lock Trump out of the 2024 race on some weird legal pretext. If that bunches up your TDS panties, I'm sorry. Reality is reality, whether you can process it objectively, or not...

----------


## acptulsa

> The Dem/RINO/neocons have calculated that this works to their advantage if they can somehow use some weird Federal legal power to lock Trump out of the 2024 race by force. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. The Clown World news headlines will tell us eventually. But Mar-a-Lago will likely turn out to be the greatest political blunder the Left has ever made if they fail to lock Trump out of the 2024 race on some weird legal pretext.


Yes.  See, that's the disconnect here.  The GOP is just a pawn in their game.

So is the Democratic Party.

As long as you think they care more about the black pawn than the white pawn, you'll never be able to see the forest for the trees.

They don't any more care if the left loses than if the right loses.  The proof is 2016.  Indeed, I think it's safe to say they wanted very much for Trump to win, because if the wicked witch of the west had tried to print that much money and give it to Big Pharma, half the population would have let out a howl that would have awakened Biden's voters early.

Can you calmly wrap your head around that thought, Grasshopper?

The Left, you say.  That sounds to me like you're still thinking of welfare queens and mid-level bureaucrats.  If you think Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates cares about either one, think twice.  Think instead who would benefit most from nationwide martial law.

The media doesn't coddle Biden and trash Trump because Klaus Schwab prefers one to the other.  The media does that because many Democrats love to be told what to think, and love to feel like they're not disenfranchised.  And because many Republicans love to feel rebellious.

----------


## PAF

> Yes.  See, that's the disconnect here.  The GOP is just a pawn in their game.
> 
> So is the Democratic Party.
> 
> As long as you think they care more about the black pawn than the white pawn, you'll never be able to see the forest for the trees.
> 
> They don't any more care if the left loses than if the right loses.  The proof is 2016.  Indeed, I think it's safe to say they wanted very much for Trump to win, because if the wicked witch of the west had tried to print that much money and give it to Big Pharma, half the population would have let out a howl that would have awakened Biden's voters early.
> 
> Can you calmly wrap your head around that thought, Grasshopper?
> ...



Spreading +Rep

----------


## ClaytonB

> Yes.  See, that's the disconnect here.  The GOP is just a pawn in their game.
> 
> So is the Democratic Party.


Check out my latest post in the "songs guaranteed to piss SOMEBODY off" thread. 




> As long as you think they care more about the black pawn than the white pawn, you'll never be able to see the forest for the trees.


Agreed.

Checking over my shoulder to see if that was addressed to somebody to whom it's actually relevant...




> They don't any more care if the left loses than if the right loses.


Broadly speaking, yes. There is an asymmetry between left and right, but it's not what Rs/Ds think. It's more of the choice between tyranny through a Big Brother nanny-state (far right), or tyranny through Mad Max chaos (far left).

You can have red-colored tyranny or blue-colored tyranny but, either way, tyranny is the only item on the menu.




> The proof is 2016.  Indeed, I think it's safe to say they wanted very much for Trump to win, because if the wicked witch of the west had tried to print that much money and give it to Big Pharma, half the population would have let out a howl that would have awakened Biden's voters early.
> 
> Can you calmly wrap your head around that thought, Grasshopper?


*clap* *clap* *clap* 

Very impressive. But the master did not teach you everything. _Something else is happening in the world right now_, something that is as far outside the Deep State's calculus, as that is outside Joe Sixpack's political calculus. I've tried raising your awareness to this possibility in the past, and I'll continue to wave the flag for those lurkers who are paying attention. This is not business-as-usual. It's not even the disruption of business-as-usual that the Schwabites have carefully plotted for god-only-knows how long. It's some other kind of thing that can't be explained in words. And the only way to properly understand it is through the spiritual lens -- Scripture.

Trump may be controlled opp. But it's not about that anymore. Something more is going on. You don't have to go full Trump-tard and start believing Trump is the Messiah (or Antichrist) in order to perceive the possibility that something more is going on.




> The Left, you say.  That sounds to me like you're still thinking of welfare queens and mid-level bureaucrats.  If you think Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates cares about either one, think twice.  Think instead who would benefit most from nationwide martial law.


DC is the organs, muscles, bones and sinews of the Deep State. So yes, the DS cares about DC _a lot_. Schwab and Gates are not the heart of the DS or even close to it. They are frontmen, which is obvious from the simple fact that we know their names.

----------


## Snowball

> I don't have knowledge to comment on that. It may be true.
> 
> But it can't be the case that enduring authority to declassify materials would come with that clearance.
> 
> If it is a fact that nothing Trump had in his house was classified and he knows this because he personally declassified it when he was president, then he should just come right out and say publicly what he remembers from these formerly classified materials that he wanted to get released to the public, personally declassified, and brought with him to his house for this purpose, while also for some reason never actually publicizing any of it. Does he want us to know about it or not? He can't have it both ways and say it's not classified but it's a secret.
> 
> Now, if he did that, one of two things would be the case. Either it would be proven true that none of the documents Trump had were classified as of his leaving office, and any that formerly had been classified no longer were classified, which could be confirmed by the National Declassification Center which would have gotten Trump's declassification orders; or it would be proven that he did possess documents that still were classified and that no records of their having been declassified could be produced either by the National Declassification Center or by Trump himself, in which case he might continue to claim that he declassified them but just kept that declassification a secret that only he knew, to which the question could then be asked, "And how's that working out for you?"
> 
> If Trump really wanted some documents to be declassified, he would have taken the declassification of them seriously enough not to be in this situation. And the documents would be public.


That's totally right, and he didn't do it with these; and his claim of having done it is denied by all his staff - it is another example of Trump making stuff up as he goes along. *We're not going to find out the truth about any of this. The Feds won't let us.* We really should stop following it because we're all being abused and insulted. Like little children, we're not ready for the big kid info, you see. Like peeping toms we're peering through the blinds trying to see what's going on in the bedroom. It's all rather disgusting and off-putting to any self-respecting, knowledgeable adult.

----------


## acptulsa

> But Mar-a-Lago will likely turn out to be the greatest political blunder the Left has ever made if they fail to lock Trump out of the 2024 race on some weird legal pretext. If that bunches up your TDS panties, I'm sorry.





> As long as you think they care more about the black pawn than the white pawn, you'll never be able to see the forest for the trees.





> Agreed.
> 
> Checking over my shoulder to see if that was addressed to somebody to whom it's actually relevant...


That's isn't relevant to him, yet he talks about TDS.




> Very impressive. But the master did not each you everything. _Something else is happening in the world right now_, something that is as far outside the Deep State's calculus...


He's changing the subject.  Again.




> Trump may be controlled opp.


Well, now.  And if he is, regardless of what God's up to, this raid comes down to one of three things.

1.  Trump went off the reservation.  If that were true, that top secret stuff would have been proof that 9/11 was an inside job, and he would have released the kracken, not sat around waiting for them to come and take it.

2.  Trump was holding blackmail material.  In which case he's as swampy as anyone, he's just more ambitious than some (and not as bright as others, keeping it in the most obvious place).

3.  Trump isn't the river, he's the dam.  Meaning his job is to get "The Right" all stirred up with loyalty, then get himself screwed.  This moves his fans to act, and acting gets them swatted.  Which seems funny, considering only six-seven percent of them were voting for him out of the seventeen candidates in the primaries, before he squeaked out a small lead and Republicans turned into lemmings as usual jumped on the old bandwagon.  But I'll be damned if they'll put up with a bunch of Democrats telling them who they can't nominate, whether they actually want to nominate him or not.

Got a Number Four I haven't thought of?  I'm not asking you to guess at God's plan.  There's a whole other subforum for that.  What I'm saying is, if "Trump may be controlled opp" is not TDS on _your_ part, then why did the Deep State stage this scene?

Can you snatch that pebble from my hand, Grasshopper?  Or can you only imitate Swardsmythe, accuse me of TDS, repeat yourself and change the subject?

----------


## TheTexan

> Here's one.  https://casetext.com/case/united-sta...n-2031#N196673


Nope, that dude was eventually charged with 18 USC 793, but the raid on his home was for 18 USC 641 (theft) and 18 USC 1924 (unauthorized removal)

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...rtin-iii/2174/

----------


## ClaytonB

> But Mar-a-Lago will likely turn out to be the greatest political blunder the Left has ever made if they fail to lock Trump out of the 2024 race on some weird legal pretext. If that bunches up your TDS panties, I'm sorry.





> As long as you think they care more about the black pawn than the white pawn, you'll never be able to see the forest for the trees.





> Checking over my shoulder to see if that was addressed to somebody to whom it's actually relevant...





> That's isn't relevant to him, yet he talks about TDS.


I don't think there's much use in you and I talking about Trump. You have some weird preconceptions about the subject and I have better things to do with my time than spend it trying to deconstruct the weird mental straitjacket that you look at the world from.

Extending the pawn metaphor, no game lasts forever, not even chess. At some point, the endgame is reached. The idea that the rules just somehow magically continue on as they always were, is ridiculous. That's exactly how the Beast NWO / Deep State / Schwabites want us to look at the world. As though "they won" and now we have to "accept our fate", etc. Well sorry, Klausie, but that's not how reality works. The Beast NWO maniacs have correctly perceived that the State is the pinnacle of power within the material world, and they have seized control of it. Now, they want to induce all of humanity to bow down and worship their golden statue. Hell no! _Whether you like it or not_, whether you think that MAGA-heads are duped or not, the fact is that that is how they perceive Trump! Trump is their "hell no!" to Klaussie and Krew. And perhaps you're right -- perhaps Klaussie and Krew have full purchase on Trump and the MAGA-masses are just sheep being led to the slaughter. But that's just Square A where I started, Tiger, way back in 2016. I paid zero attention to Trump and the election because, in my view at that time, he was obviously just "the other puppet". I've already explained the reasons my view on that has shifted over time. But I don't think in the way that most people do. I'm capable of holding multiple conflicting beliefs in hypothetical tension, without the overwhelming psychological need to resolve that tension and "decide". Depending on events, it is possible that I may revert to my original 2016 assessment of Trump. But for now, the facts as best as I can see them are not consistent with that. Trump is not simply just another Beast NWO pawn. Something else is going on.

Please don't make me repost the GIF. Even I hate it.




> He's changing the subject. Again.


You can't dance on the edge of a cliff with your back to it, and then complain when I point out that there is nothing but empty air behind you. Yes, the reality in the direction that you are not looking is _nothing like_ the reality in the direction you are looking. Pointing it out is not "changing the subject", it is simply noting that you're ignoring basically half of the relevant reality. Trump and the US 2022 cannot be viewed solely through the lens of materialism. Even normies are starting to realize that something truly does not add up here. Even the sheep are starting to catch fleeting glimpses of the wolf's outline in their peripheral vision. Klaussie and the rest of the bug-eaters in the Beast NWO aren't prepared for the fight they've picked. I'm not saying that based on headlines, I'm informing you (first-hand) that it's the case. They cannot even begin to imagine what is coming for them. Trump should be the least of their worries.




> Well, now.  And if he is, regardless of what God's up to, this raid comes down to one of three things.
> 
> 1.  Trump went off the reservation.  If that were true, that top secret stuff would have been proof that 9/11 was an inside job, and he would have released the kracken, not sat around waiting for them to come and take it.


Why do you have such difficulty entertaining the possibility that Trump went off the reservation a long time ago? Why is Trump definitely "just a pawn" in 2016 but somehow in 2022 he might have "gone off the reservation"??




> 2.  Trump was holding blackmail material.  In which case he's as swampy as anyone, he's just more ambitious than some.


I don't know Trump's heart, only God does. He might be the most misunderstood saint, or he might be the worst demon, and I would not know the difference. But one verse that always pops into my head when contemplating Trump is Ezekiel 7:24, "I will bring the most wicked of nations to take possession of their houses. I will put an end to the pride of the mighty, and their sanctuaries will be desecrated..." Without getting distracted with apocalyptic details, the point of the verse is that God's judgment comes in the following form: a wickedness that is just _way more competent (ambitious)_ than the wicked whom God is judging. Perhaps Trump is just better at the world domination game than Klaussie and he's just giving Klaus a royal spanking. That's also a possibility.




> 3.  Trump isn't the river, he's the dam.  Meaning his job is to get "The Right" all stirred up with loyalty, then get himself screwed.  This moves his fans to act, and acting gets them swatted.


Well I'm pretty much convinced that probably happened at Jan 6. But I'm not so sure that makes Trump the bad guy. For all her histrionics, Hillary is right that there _are_ evil right-wingers who would love to have an Apocalypse so they can transform into Danny McBride in _This Is The End_. That's a Hard-To-Swallow-Pill for a lot of RPFers, but it's the cold hard truth. If we are about to flush out a global pedophile/pedovore network, I don't want human-nitroglycerin as part of the movement. That's just an opportunity for the devil to detonate us from within.




> I'm not asking you to guess at God's plan.


I never guess. And if I do, I say it out loud.

NEVER




> What I'm saying is, if "Trump may be controlled opp" is not TDS on _your_ part, then why did the Deep State stage this scene?


Which scene? I don't understand your question.




> Can you snatch that pebble from my hand, Grasshopper?  Or can you only imitate Swardsmythe, accuse me of TDS, repeat yourself and change the subject?


I'm serious, don't make me post the GIF. My name is clearly posted right next to every single post I write and I know you have enough reading-capability to read it and understand it. So do that.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Yes.  See, that's the disconnect here.  The GOP is just a pawn in their game.
> 
> So is the Democratic Party.
> 
> As long as you think they care more about the black pawn than the white pawn, you'll never be able to see the forest for the trees.
> 
> They don't any more care if the left loses than if the right loses.  The proof is 2016.  Indeed, I think it's safe to say they wanted very much for Trump to win, because if the wicked witch of the west had tried to print that much money and give it to Big Pharma, half the population would have let out a howl that would have awakened Biden's voters early.
> 
> Can you calmly wrap your head around that thought, Grasshopper?
> ...


The left is fairly entrenched in the bureaucratic deep state. I don't think they're going reverse all that and start over again on the right. My opinion, but, they've got a fairly solid structure when a good chunk of the GOP and 100% of the left thinks any talk of deep state is all just conspiracy theory talk. They've been building that structure for decades and even when the right holds power, the neolib/neocon bureaucrats remain in D.C. behind the scenes, mucking up whatever they can get away with. And finally, it seems like they're digging in. This push to label every opposing viewpoint as 'domestic terrorism' is wholly owned today by the left, and they're doubling down.

I say we just need to do a bit of sorting. There's still some neocon holdouts on the right that need to be sent packing back to the democratic party, or the newly formed shell/front party "Forward". Just get them out of the GOP i don't care where they go. Embrace the division and let the lines be drawn clearly, I say.

The problem is not that there are black pawns and white pawns, the problem is that everything is grey.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't think there's much use in you and I talking about Trump. You have some weird preconceptions about the subject and I have better things to do with my time than spend it trying to deconstruct the weird mental straitjacket that you look at the world from...
> 
> And perhaps you're right -- perhaps Klaussie and Krew have full purchase on Trump and the MAGA-masses are just sheep being led to the slaughter. But that's just Square A where I started, Tiger, way back in 2016. I paid zero attention to Trump and the election because, in my view at that time, he was obviously just "the other puppet". I've already explained the reasons my view on that has shifted over time...
> 
> I don't know Trump's heart, only God does.


Or maybe instead of emulating him, you'll emulate Romney and flip flop for a while.

So, bottom line: You either have no Number Four to offer, or you can't articulate it.  But if I can't flip flop with you, I'm blind in one eye, and can't turn my head because of my straitjacket.  Nice.




> Why do you have such difficulty entertaining the possibility that Trump went off the reservation a long time ago?


How many times do I have to repeat it?  Lord, give me strength to keep saying what people have no ears to hear.

Clay, brother, excuse me for screaming into your hearing aid, but I'm at my wit's end.  I don't know how else to deal with someone who asks the question, gets the answer, and asks the exact same question again.

*It was not a long time ago that he paid Big Pharma to deliver hundreds of millions of vials of poison.  Not long ago at all.

It wasn't all that awfully long ago that he conspired with Nancy Pelosi to suspend the Constitution.*




> I say we just need to do a bit of sorting. There's still some neocon holdouts on the right that need to be sent packing back to the democratic party, or the newly formed shell/front party "Forward". Just get them out of the GOP i don't care where they go. Embrace the division and let the lines be drawn clearly, I say.


Sounds good.  And if we had gotten Nathan Dahm nominated for the Senate here in OK, I'd have some faith that the rank and file GOP was competent to do that sorting.

I've seen improvement since 2008.  But Republican primary voters still have a very long way to go, and no time left to get there.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Or maybe instead of emulating him, you'll emulate Romney and flip flop for a while.
> 
> So, bottom line: You either have no Number Four to offer, or you can't articulate it.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat it?  Lord, give me strength to keep saying what people have no ears to hear.
> 
> Clay, brother, excuse me for screaming into your hearing aid, but I'm at my wit's end.  I don't know how else to deal with someone who asks the question, gets the answer, and asks the exact same question again.
> ...


I'm disappointed with primary turnout myself. I understand some folks have convictions when it comes to participating, but on one hand people complain that our choices suck every other November, but on the other hand they can't be bothered to turn out and put some effort into getting someone on the general election ballot that isn't a douche or a turd sandwich. It takes like, I dunno, 10-15 minutes to actually cast a primary ballot every 2 years?

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm disappointed with primary turnout myself. I understand some folks have convictions when it comes to participating, but on one hand people complain that our choices suck every other November, but on the other hand they can't be bothered to turn out and put some effort into getting someone on the general election ballot that isn't a douche or a turd sandwich. It takes like, I dunno, 10-15 minutes to actually cast a primary ballot every 2 years?


And these days, the GOP primary is where it's at.  There, and in the volunteer poll workers counting the votes.

----------


## acptulsa

They aren't this stupid.  Well, Biden is, but not his handlers.   They're dangling Trump in front of Republicans like a bone.  I don't know if that's to get this reliable puppet reinstated, just in time to sabotage the investigation into the jab and stop resistance to the great Gates farmland buyout, or if they'll snatch that bone away and use the reaction to impose martial law.

Either way, I don't like it.

----------


## TheTexan

> No, no, it's all fake. It's all an elaborate theater. All of Washington DC has gotten together and carefully rehearsed pretending to "hate" Trump while, of course, totally loving him and wanting nothing more than to have him back in the Oval Office. </sarcasm>


Yep, you have to be pretty deep on the spectrum, to not be able to see the visceral hatred they have for Trump.

The idea that they secretly love Trump, is like the autistic version of the moon landing conspiracy.

----------


## ClaytonB

> They aren't this stupid.


That's one of our biggest disagreements. They're not just dumb, they're _dumber than dumb_. Like, whatever you think is the lowest level of stupidity at which a human can still be day-to-day operational... think of something a thousand IQ points dumber than that. We are not fighting super-villains... we are fighting super-_clowns_. Until you get that into your head, you and I are never going to see eye-to-eye on this topic.

Dumber than you can possibly imagine. That's not hyperbole.

----------


## acptulsa

> Until you get that into your head, you and I are never going to see eye-to-eye on this topic.
> 
> Dumber than you can possibly imagine. That's not hyperbole.


You're half right.  We get to agree to disagree.



Their arrogance and godlessness may make them foolish.  But that doesn't mean they can't plan and execute a strategy.

----------


## TheTexan

> That's one of our biggest disagreements. They're not just dumb, they're _dumber than dumb_. Like, whatever you think is the lowest level of stupidity at which a human can still be day-to-day operational... think of something a thousand IQ points dumber than that. We are not fighting super-villains... we are fighting super-_clowns_. Until you get that into your head, you and I are never going to see eye-to-eye on this topic.
> 
> Dumber than you can possibly imagine. That's not hyperbole.


Their intellect is (generally) fine but like most people they are guided by emotion.  And they hate Trump with impressive intensity.  It supersedes any intellect that may or may not exist.

----------


## kahless

> Yep, you have to be pretty deep on the spectrum, to not be able to see the visceral hatred they have for Trump.
> 
> The idea that they secretly love Trump, is like the autistic version of the moon landing conspiracy.


There is no indication from anyone that there is this belief of some some secret love from his loudest opposition.  That is ridiculous.  Sounds more like you want to disparage anyone that calls out your false god. 

I think some people fail to understand that the hatred is the power struggle within the club which for the most part has nothing to do with Trump sharing any of the same beliefs as you.  Trump will use you and your beliefs to hit them over the head to win the power struggle but has no allegiance to it.  Trump not being a team player and fighting back after repeated rejection is a more likely reason for the opposition within the club.

Historically Trump has held the same beliefs as the rest of the elite club.  His beliefs only changed when he saw the only opening was on the right.  He even said it himself that if the Clinton's did not have a stranglehold on the Democratic Party he probably would have taken that opening instead,

----------


## TheTexan

> There is no indication from anyone that there is this belief of some some secret love from his loudest opposition.  That is ridiculous.  Sounds more like you want to disparage anyone that calls out your false god.


Ya, I won't bother posting examples, but I can't go half a page into a Trump thread, without someone saying the media/DC/elites/whatever are doing X, Y, or Z because they want to get Trump re-elected, or that Trump is a member of the elites and they chose to get him elected, or whatever.

If you want to be tedious about the word selection and say that's not "love" that's fine but the point still stands.

----------


## acptulsa

> There is no indication from anyone that there is this belief of some some secret love from his loudest opposition.  That is ridiculous.


Isn't it?

All fall and half the winter, Republicans watch men do fierce battle on football fields, while generally trying to play within the rules.  And the have no trouble at all understanding how they can fight for dominance and glory without letting it go outside the form of the game that pays them a good salary.

And yet, they can't picture how politicians can vie for dominance without exposing the game or forgetting to screw the constituents.

There's another disconnect I don't get.  Maybe Tex is right.  Maybe all of us who can see our hands in front of our faces are weird, autistic, something different.




> Ya, I won't bother posting examples, but I can't go half a page into a Trump thread, without someone saying the media/DC/elites/whatever are doing X, Y, or Z because they want to get Trump re-elected, or that Trump is a member of the elites and they chose to get him elected, or whatever.
> 
> If you want to be tedious about the word selection and say that's not "love" that's fine but the point still stands.


Was there ever a football team, ever in history, who had a quarterback who was a total $#@! and was universally despised, yet his teammates put up with him because he was good at his job?

----------


## TheTexan

> Maybe Tex is right.  Maybe all of us who can see our hands in front of our faces are weird, autistic, something different.


Well pretty much everyone on this board is weird, autistic, or something different.

But for those who doubt the sincerity of the left/media/DC's hatred of Trump.... I would advise those people to take their own level of weirdness into account when making that judgement.

----------


## acptulsa

> Well pretty much everyone on this board is weird, autistic, or something different.
> 
> But for those who doubt the sincerity of the left/media/DC's hatred of Trump.... I would advise those people to take their own level of weirdness into account when making that judgement.


Who cares what those tools hate?  They don't tell Bill Gates what to do, he issues orders to them.  Including, particularly, who to fire.

Linebackers hit running backs like they want them to stop, too.  If they didn't, they wouldn't have gotten the job.

The useful idiots are sincere!  So?  Got a point you want to make?

----------


## ClaytonB

> You're half right.  We get to agree to disagree.
> 
> Their arrogance and godlessness may make them foolish.  But that doesn't mean they can't plan and execute a strategy.


To clarify, I don't say that they're stupid because I underestimate their ambition. And I _know_ they can execute a plan, etc. But the counterpoint:

----------


## acptulsa

> To clarify, I don't say that they're stupid because I underestimate their ambition. And I _know_ they can execute a plan, etc. But the counterpoint:


Agreed.  But I still don't intend to underestimate how dangerous they are, how involved their strategies are, or how ruthlessly the keep their henchmen in line.

I don't see stupidity at the top of that structure.  Arrogance.  They don't believe in God, and are convinced they're right.  They're so psychotic they think they can beat God.  Whatever.  It doesn't lead me to believe that they can't hire a bunch of talking heads who hate one of their own specifically because that's how the plan works.

----------


## TheTexan

> Was there ever a football team, ever in history, who had a quarterback who was a total $#@! and was universally despised, yet his teammates put up with him because he was good at his job?


See, you don't understand the level of hatred.  To them, he's not just an $#@!.  He is literally Hitler.

Plenty of coaches/players have been fired for less recently... even if they were good at their job.

----------


## TheTexan

> Who cares what those tools hate?  They don't tell Bill Gates what to do, he issues orders to them.  Including, particularly, who to fire.
> 
> Linebackers hit running backs like they want them to stop, too.  If they didn't, they wouldn't have gotten the job.
> 
> The useful idiots are sincere!  So?  Got a point you want to make?


I would make a point but I'm unable to get your point.  Do you have a point you want to make?

----------


## ClaytonB

> Who cares what those tools hate?  They don't tell Bill Gates what to do, he issues orders to them.  Including, particularly, who to fire.
> 
> Linebackers hit running backs like they want them to stop, too.  If they didn't, they wouldn't have gotten the job.
> 
> The useful idiots are sincere!  So?  Got a point you want to make?


You vastly overestimate the competence and significance of household names. Bill Gates is more like the Monopoly Man (a widely-recognized brand image) than some actual "mover-and-shaker", which is how he perceives himself and wants everybody else to perceive him. You put too much stock in appearances and take too little account of the unseen depths below. The Abyss is what moves this evil world. The puppets moving across the screen are just the final stage of perception, where the Abyss becomes materially visible. And the idea that "Everything Is a Rich Man's Trick" -- the title of the YT propaganda video that is continually pumped by the Algorithm -- is just a black-pill. No, the Abyss does not control all the puppets. That's where this crosses over to being a New Testament issue. God has his people, too. Who they are is anybody's guess but "unlikeliest" is the watchword......

----------


## acptulsa

Jesus.

Well, I guess it's to you guys' credit that you just can't wrap your mind around these demons.  But it illustrates why we can't throw off this yoke.

Having faith in God does _not_ require a refusal to believe in evil, nor a conviction that because the evil are wrong they must be stupid.  And the deep partisan affection of the play-by-play announcer of the home team's radio network doesn't mean the coach couldn't possibly have the other coach over for a drink after the game.

No eyes to see with...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Nope, that dude was eventually charged with 18 USC 793, but the raid on his home was for 18 USC 641 (theft) and 18 USC 1924 (unauthorized removal)
> 
> http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...rtin-iii/2174/


You asked, "When has anyone's home been raided, over having classified documents".  The guy did, in fact, have classified documents, so it's immaterial what he was eventually charged with.

----------


## TheTexan

> You asked, "When has anyone's home been raided, over having classified documents".  The guy did, in fact, have classified documents, so it's immaterial what he was eventually charged with.


You missed the point then.  The reason why I asked that question, as I did, is because it seems like an extreme measure to raid someone's home over a relatively minor offense such as 18 USC 793.

The example you provided has done nothing to dissuade me of that notion, as the warrant to raid Harold Martin's home was over more severe offenses.  It is indeed "immaterial", to me, what he was eventually charged with.

----------


## ClaytonB

> Jesus.
> 
> Well, I guess it's to you guys' credit that you just can't wrap your mind around these demons.  But it illustrates why we can't throw off this yoke.


We are all blind men groping the elephant. I can at least grant that you may be groping some other part of the elephant I don't know about. Try to grant the same consideration to me, and I think it will make my posts much more readable for you.




> Having faith in God does _not_ require a refusal to believe in evil, nor a conviction that because the evil are wrong they must be stupid.


I'm not making any inferences. I'm informing you: they are more stupid than you dare to imagine. Note the "than you dare to imagine". That's not hyperbole. And it's not guesswork or inference, either.




> No eyes to see with...


Your eyes are obsessed with Trump-the-person, and that's how you're being hoodwinked, all while telling yourself that you're peering through to the "real reality". Your finishing move is "Trump is working for the same guys that Biden/etc are working for"... dude, I was already there _six years ago_. Way ahead of you. But as new information has emerged, I have reevaluated my old assumptions.

Yes, the wicked have a conspiracy. So what? God's conspiracy is even bigger. And guess who loses in the end -- THEY DO. Whether God chooses to work through Trump or not is up to God, and our perceptions of that are, ultimately, just perceptions. The bigger lesson is that Klaussie's bug-eating Antichrist World Order conspiracy is just fuel for the flames, one way or another...




> Has not the Lord Almighty determined
> That the people’s labor is only fuel for the fire,
> That the nations exhaust themselves for nothing?
> (Hab. 2:13)
> 
> Therefore once more I will astound these people
> With wonder upon wonder;
> The wisdom of the wise will perish,
> The intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”
> ...

----------


## ClaytonB

> You missed the point then.  The reason why I asked that question, as I did, is because it seems like an extreme measure to raid someone's home over a relatively minor offense such as 18 USC 793.
> 
> The example you provided has done nothing to dissuade me of that notion, as the warrant to raid Harold Martin's home was over more severe offenses.  It is indeed "immaterial", to me, what he was eventually charged with.


In general, mishandling of TS material is a very serious offense and can result in severe punishment. Bradley Manning is a good example of that and, if they ever get their hands on him, Edward Snowden would be also.

The problem with the entire public narrative surrounding the Mar-a-Lago raid is that POTUS (including ex-POTUS) is in an entirely separate legal category from all other Federal officials or agents because POTUS is the personification of Executive secrecy. The nuclear codes are only ever held and controlled by one man, that's the whole reason that the football exists. There are procedures and criteria for the use of nuclear weapons but, in the case of a real nuclear emergency, there is exactly and only _one_ decision-maker in respect to nuclear launch: POTUS. That captures the essence of what "executive" really means. It's that way because, in the most extreme emergency, "collaborative consensus" is a recipe for annihilation. In the same way, POTUS has sole, unitary discretion to declassify any document in the executive branch. Whether he exercises that authority without legal consultation, is a separate matter, but he has it. In this respect, POTUS is completely unlike any other Federal official and it's patently absurd to examine the President's handling of classified materials through the legal lens that you would apply to, say, an FBI agent or Pentagon staff. If POTUS wanted to, he could scatter the classified Roswell files from the Presidential limo like parade-candy. If Biden did it, they'd all laugh, but if Trump had done it, they would have tried to initiate 25th-amendment protocol. Either way, it would not be an 18 USC question.

It is my view that, for the same reason that POTUS and family have lifetime USSS protection, ex-POTUS handling of TS information can't be treated through the 18-USC lens. Yes, ex-POTUS isn't POTUS, but he could declassify anything he wants and leave office with it that way (100% legal, by force) so it makes no sense to say, "Sorry sir, you can't retain that information after you leave office." What are you going to do, neuralyze all ex-POTUS's with a MIB neuralyzer? As if POTUS walks out the door and just magically forgets the classified info he had access to (which is 100% of all classified info in the executive.) If they file charges (and it seems they're locked into it now), it's not a case that can even be heard by any lower court, it has to go straight to SCOTUS because it's really a separation-of-powers case. Yes, DoJ can charge ex-POTUS but it's kind of like standing on your father's lap to slap him in the face -- the very same people who are charging him are his inferiors (the honor of rank persists even after service), and the information he's now supposedly mishandling he had unilateral power to declassify at any time as POTUS. So it's just nonsense. If it wasn't properly secured on the premises, that's the Federal government's fault because they were just out to Mar-a-Lago and installed the locks/security where the documents were being secured.

This entire story is transparently a dog-and-pony show, textbook Wag the Dog, and the intentionally lobotomized discussion surrounding it bears all the marks of standard PSYOP. Whether Trump is the one pulling the strings, or somebody else, is anybody's guess. But _somebody_ is pulling strings and the dancing marionettes are dancing around like a bunch of clowns...

----------


## TheTexan

> In general, mishandling of TS material is a very serious offense and can result in severe punishment. Bradley Manning is a good example of that and, if they ever get their hands on him, Edward Snowden would be also.


Bradley Manning was charged with a whole bunch of stuff more serious than "mishandling of TS".  The 18 USC 793 charges were the least of his worries...

And same would go for Edward Snowden.  Snowden would wish to be so lucky to only be charged with 18 USC 793.

You are correct that they take this stuff seriously, but when they do, its when they have stronger charges to play than 18 USC 793.

18 USC 793 by itself is almost impossible to charge and convict someone with, in no small part because it is very difficult to prove intent.  I would assume that basically anyone who is convicted under that section would have done so as part of a plea bargain.

And similarly... to get a warrant for 18 USC 793, one would presumably have to show evidence that there is probable cause of not just the possession of classified documents, but the *intent* to use them maliciously.  Extremely hard to prove - and one of the reasons why I would suspect there are not very many raids on people's homes on that specific charge.

The exception would be subsection (d) which says documents must be returned to the government upon request.  Presumably that's what they are referring to... but they would still need to prove obstruction (... waiting ...)

----------


## fcreature

> Why?  What kept him?
> 
> I still say the gaping hole in this theory is, there's no possible reason why not one single page came out, not one hint was given that they might come out, except that the person holding all this lovely stuff was, like a blackmailer, still taking bids for his silence.


Were you asleep for 4 years? Do I seriously need to answer this question?

Hoaxes by the day. Investigation after investigation. Special counsels. Activist judges and DAs. Constant process crimes and obstruction of justice charges (and others) looming over his head. Literally tens of thousands of entrenched bureaucrats all with aligned self-preservation interests intent on slow-rolling and throwing wrenches in any way they could. The total and complete weaponization of every agency, system and process against the Orange Man. His own political party working against his interests.

Trump is a lot of things, but I'm sure he did not want to end up dead or in prison.




> our beloved high-energy go-getter Alpha


Careful, you are signaling strong levels of TDS here.

I have plenty of complaints when it comes to Trump, but some of you around here are so triggered by the man, you can't even recognize obvious truths right in front of you.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> it seems like an extreme measure to raid someone's home over a relatively minor offense such as 18 USC 793.


If you're referring to the Trump search warrant, 18 USC 793 was only one of the statutes referred to. The other two deal with obstruction of justice and destruction or concealment of public records.

We won't really know how minor a charge against Trump under Section 793 would be until we know exactly what sort of records were recovered from Mar-a-Lago.  Suppose they included things like a list of CIA operatives or outlines of strategies in connection with ongoing negotiations with other countries. Those are hardly minor matters.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If they file charges (and it seems they're locked into it now), it's not a case that can even be heard by any lower court, it has to go straight to SCOTUS because it's really a separation-of-powers case.


The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is limited to cases affecting "ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party".  It wouldn't extend to a criminal case against Trump.  The case would start in a lower court and would undoubtedly be appealed to SCOTUS.

Moreover, how does a separation-of-powers issue even arise?  Trump was not President when he concealed the material.  He had no legal authority to possess it, and he wasn't part of the Executive Branch at the time.  He was a private citizen.

----------


## PAF

Two wrongs don't make a right. And though different circumstances and non-related, I was sitting here thinking how ironic it is:




> January 17, 2018 - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday said he signed into law a bill renewing the National Security Agency’s Warrantless Internet Surveillance Program, sealing a defeat for digital privacy advocates. The legislation renews and extends Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for six years and with minimal changes the National Security Agency (NSA) program. The program also incidentally scoops up Americans’ communications, including when they communicate with a foreign target living overseas, and can search those messages without a warrant.

----------


## acptulsa

> Were you asleep for 4 years? Do I seriously need to answer this question?
> 
> Hoaxes by the day. Investigation after investigation. Special counsels. Activist judges and DAs. Constant process crimes and obstruction of justice charges (and others) looming over his head. Literally tens of thousands of entrenched bureaucrats all with aligned self-preservation interests intent on slow-rolling and throwing wrenches in any way they could. The total and complete weaponization of every agency, system and process against the Orange Man. His own political party working against his interests.
> 
> Trump is a lot of things, but I'm sure he did not want to end up dead or in prison.


That's an awfully long winded way of saying, yes, blackmail purposes.




> Careful, you are signaling strong levels of TDS here.
> 
> I have plenty of complaints when it comes to Trump, but some of you around here are so triggered by the man, you can't even recognize obvious truths right in front of you.


If that's a symptom of TDS, and you really think that's a bad thing, you might exercise a little care yourself.

----------


## ClaytonB

> The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is limited to cases affecting "ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party".  It wouldn't extend to a criminal case against Trump.  The case would start in a lower court and would undoubtedly be appealed to SCOTUS.
> 
> Moreover, how does a separation-of-powers issue even arise?  Trump was not President when he concealed the material.  He had no legal authority to possess it, and he wasn't part of the Executive Branch at the time.  He was a private citizen.


Look, this pollyannaish discussion that is emanating from the MSM and its bots is tiresome. If you cannot understand that there is a categorical difference between POTUS (including ex-POTUS) and all other Federal officials, there are no words I can write here that are going to help you. When Trump became President, he became the sole embodiment of the executive power of the United States government, whether you like to think about that or not. That includes not only sole executive discretion over the US military, but also sole executive discretion over the classification of materials. The idea that you are going to "raid" an ex-POTUS's house in search of mis-handled classified materials is ... ludicrous. However, if that's the absurdity that the Deep Clown State sincerely wants, then we can serve that absurdity up on tap. Be careful what you wish for...

----------


## ClaytonB

> I have plenty of complaints when it comes to Trump, but some of you around here are so triggered by the man, you can't even recognize obvious truths right in front of you.


It's truly amazing, isn't it. Almost like Trump himself is the PSYOP and those with TDS-tendencies are the target. I can acknowledge the possibility that Trump might not be what he appears to be, that he might secretly be working for some bad end. That's certainly possible. But those with TDS or borderline-TDS are _literally incapable_ of granting the opposite. To them, it is _axiomatically, definitionally impossible_ that Trump could be a good guy. They are incapable of reasoning about the broader significance of Trump, why his supporters support him, why the MAGA movement is so powerful, etc. They become instantly obsessed with Trump-the-man and any mention of him evokes involuntary acid-reflux and spraying venom. Anyone who does not join them in spraying venom is definitionally a Trump-worshiper and believes that Trump is the Second Coming of Jesus. It's like, wow, seriously, are you really so invested in this issue that you are incapable of dispassionate objectivity? This is how people act who have skin in the game. I don't have any skin in the game. If Trump were to turn out to have secretly been the Antichrist all along, I would be surprised and disappointed but I would not be existentially undone. Maybe some MAGA-heads would be, but I'm not a MAGA-head, I'm not a Trumper. I seriously don't get this mentality...

----------


## acptulsa

Me: Good guys don't give hundreds of billions to Big Pharma to develop poisons, create entire new departments and branches of the military, and conspire with Pelosi to suspend the Constitution.

Seemingly otherwise sane people who claim they don't even like Trump:




> But those with TDS or borderline-TDS are _literally incapable_ of granting the opposite. To them, it is _axiomatically, definitionally impossible_ that Trump could be a good guy.

----------


## acptulsa

So I define "person who rapes the economy, tries to deprive us all of the Constitutional protection of our God-given rights, and fund things that directly lead to the deaths of people I loved" as a bad guy.  If you have a different definition, run with it.  But are you people really incapable of respecting my definition?

"If you believe Massie over me (Trump has never once denied it) or believe your own eyes over my denials, you're deranged." Well, I guess I can't talk.  If I won't respect your definition of "deranged", I guess I shouldn't expect you to respect my definition of "bad guy".  So, whatever.

----------


## ClaytonB

> So I define "person who rapes the economy, tries to deprive us all of the Constitutional protection of our God-given rights, and fund things that directly lead to the deaths of people I loved" as a bad guy.  If you have a different definition, run with it.  But are you people really incapable of respecting my definition?
> 
> "If you believe Massie over me (Trump has never once denied it) or believe your own eyes over my denials, you're deranged." Well, I guess I can't talk.  If I won't respect your definition of "deranged", I guess I shouldn't expect you to respect my definition of "bad guy".  So, whatever.


I will grant that the bad things that Trump did are bad. You won't get any argument from me on that. And as annoying as the statists are when they make the inevitability argument -- "The State exists whether you like it or not, you can't change it anyway, so it's like you're arguing against gravity" -- they are right that the State cannot be changed overnight. I don't know all the choices facing Trump when he was in office, and maybe he should have made different choices, but I do know that his choices were not unconstrained... he did not have unilateral power to just do whatever he wanted. While the Executive and Legislative are nominally independent, Congress has effectively tied the hands of POTUS over the past century by creating all of these agencies which can only be indirectly controlled by POTUS through very narrowly defined channels over which the Swamp has complete control. So, POTUS has the "theoretical" power to wield the power of the executive as he sees fit, but all of his specific powers have been defined by the Swamp and are controlled by the Swamp.

The Swamp never feared that Trump would "abolish the Department of _____". They fear and hate him because they cannot control his tongue. He will not stick to the approved script, and he shines the spotlight on anyone that he sees as out-of-line, whether they are a darling of the Swamp or not. For these and many similar "crimes", the Swamp hates Trump with the fury of a thousand nuclear bombs. Which goes to show the true nature of the political problem of DC. It's not merely an organizational/administrative problem, as though we just need to get somebody into office who will make the right decisions for a while, and the ship will be righted. No, the ship has been engineered with the precision of a Swiss watch to be _un-rightable_. I think that Trump understands that, and I think that's why he hits the Swamp where it actually hurts: in the infosphere. They only want to fight on their rigged battlefield, that is, the DC swamp. There, they have a million weapons at their disposal to negate and nullify any sincere attempt to dethrone them. But they don't yet have complete airtight control over the infosphere. Trump's refusal to fight them on their own terms is why they hate him more than anyone has ever hated anything...

----------


## acptulsa

> I will grant that the bad things that Trump did are bad. You won't get any argument from me on that. And as annoying as the statists are when they make the inevitability argument -- "The State exists whether you like it or not, you can't change it anyway, so it's like you're arguing against gravity" -- they are right that the State cannot be changed overnight. I don't know all the choices facing Trump when he was in office, and maybe he should have made different choices, but I do know that his choices were not unconstrained... he did not have unilateral power to just do whatever he wanted.


He didn't have to call Massie and tell him to let Pelosi suspend the Constitution.  He didn't have to badmouth Massie when he didn't obey.

 No bureaucrat could "constrain" him into doing that.  At least, not without holding blackmail material over his head.




> He will not stick to the approved script...


Wake me when he says not to take the jab.

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## PAF

> So I define "person who rapes the economy, tries to deprive us all of the Constitutional protection of our God-given rights, and fund things that directly lead to the deaths of people I loved" as a bad guy.  If you have a different definition, run with it.  But are you people really incapable of respecting my definition?
> 
> "If you believe Massie over me (Trump has never once denied it) or believe your own eyes over my denials, you're deranged." Well, I guess I can't talk.  If I won't respect your definition of "deranged", I guess I shouldn't expect you to respect my definition of "bad guy".  So, whatever.


Amazing the lengths people will go to, to try to analyze, defend and make excuses. Had Obummer done just _half_, you bet your a$$ they'd run him through the rake.

And yet this guy is _still_ talked about every single day in the "newz" (except not a thing about his actual record) and is more popular than before the primaries in 2015. Signs up _everywhere_ "Make America Great Again". 

Just. Simply. Amazing. Twilight Zone.

----------


## TheTexan

> Amazing the lengths people will go to, to try to analyze, defend and make excuses. Had Obummer done just _half_, you bet your a$$ they'd run him through the rake.
> 
> And yet this guy is _still_ talked about every single day in the "newz" (except not a thing about his actual record) and is more popular than before the primaries in 2015. Signs up _everywhere_ "Make America Great Again". 
> 
> Just. Simply. Amazing. Twilight Zone.


Trump wouldn't have received the hate that he did, if he wasn't over the target.

The target in this case I think was less ideological, and more cultural.

Trump represented a return to cultural normalcy, where its again ok to joke about grabbing women by the pussy.  A culture where it's OK to not give a $#@! about being PC.

Ideology is important but so is culture and he helped return some sanity in that regard.

----------


## PAF

> Trump wouldn't have received the hate that he did, if he wasn't over the target.
> 
> The target in this case I think was less ideological, and more cultural.
> 
> Trump represented a return to cultural normalcy, where its again ok to joke about grabbing women by the pussy.  A culture where it's OK to not give a $#@! about being PC.
> 
> Ideology is important but so is culture and he helped return some sanity in that regard.



1. NEVER fund the enemy. Ever. Never ever.

2. While joking about grabbing women by the pussy passes 1stA muster, and it should, "with liberty comes responsibility".

The condition he set this country up for Biden was deplorable. It was NOT a good compromise or exchange. My take is that behind closed doors, "he" knew that Biden would take over where he left off. And golly gee.

----------


## ClaytonB

> cultural normalcy, where its again ok to joke about grabbing women by the pussy


Yeah, no. Trump expressed regret over that and it's definitely one of the most solid punches that the Swamp got in on him. Locker-room talk belongs in the locker-room and it's never going to attain the status of "cultural normalcy", nor should it. But cultural normalcy in terms of men have penises and women have vaginas... well yeah, that's exactly what Trump represents and it's exactly why the Swamp's infernal horde of NPC/SJW's will die to a man-woman-thing before Trump ever again darkens the door of the White House.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Trump wouldn't have received the hate that he did, if he wasn't over the target.


Could the big target they are trying to protect, be the Globalist agenda of Build Back Better?   

I've noticed that slogan being used in the Netherlands too.

----------


## TheTexan

> Locker-room talk belongs in the locker-room


Point was, our opponents don't want locker-room talk *anywhere*.  If you're caught even mumbling it to yourself in your own home and Alexa hears it, you're done for.

I still think positively of Trump for saying that, so that "solid punch" maybe was not so solid as you think.

----------


## acptulsa

> Amazing the lengths people will go to, to try to analyze, defend and make excuses. Had Obummer done just _half_, you bet your a$$ they'd run him through the rake.
> 
> And yet this guy is _still_ talked about every single day in the "newz" (except not a thing about his actual record) and is more popular than before the primaries in 2015. Signs up _everywhere_ "Make America Great Again". 
> 
> Just. Simply. Amazing. Twilight Zone.


I'm just amazed that people can't seem to figure out they wouldn't have to do anywhere near as much of this...




> 


...if they didn't put so much effort into this:




> It's truly amazing, isn't it. Almost like Trump himself is the PSYOP and those with TDS-tendencies are the target. I can acknowledge the possibility that Trump might not be what he appears to be, that he might secretly be working for some bad end. That's certainly possible. But those with TDS or borderline-TDS are _literally incapable_ of granting the opposite. To them, it is _axiomatically, definitionally impossible_ that Trump could be a good guy. They are incapable of reasoning about the broader significance of Trump, why his supporters support him, why the MAGA movement is so powerful, etc. They become instantly obsessed with Trump-the-man and any mention of him evokes involuntary acid-reflux and spraying venom. Anyone who does not join them in spraying venom is definitionally a Trump-worshiper and believes that Trump is the Second Coming of Jesus. It's like, wow, seriously, are you really so invested in this issue that you are incapable of dispassionate objectivity? This is how people act who have skin in the game. I don't have any skin in the game. If Trump were to turn out to have secretly been the Antichrist all along, I would be surprised and disappointed but I would not be existentially undone. Maybe some MAGA-heads would be, but I'm not a MAGA-head, I'm not a Trumper. I seriously don't get this mentality...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Look, this pollyannaish discussion that is emanating from the MSM and its bots is tiresome. If you cannot understand that there is a categorical difference between POTUS (including ex-POTUS) and all other Federal officials, there are no words I can write here that are going to help you. When Trump became President, he became the sole embodiment of the executive power of the United States government, whether you like to think about that or not. That includes not only sole executive discretion over the US military, but also sole executive discretion over the classification of materials. The idea that you are going to "raid" an ex-POTUS's house in search of mis-handled classified materials is ... ludicrous. However, if that's the absurdity that the Deep Clown State sincerely wants, then we can serve that absurdity up on tap. Be careful what you wish for...


I've already debunked your claim that Trump has some sort of lifetime security clearance.  He doesn't. 

I'm not denying Trump had the authority to declassify materials while in office.  But I don't believe he ever declassified all the stuff he took with him, and I'm sure as hell not going to take his word for it.  Good grief, if he ever had said," I'm declassifying the stuff that's in these boxes" don't you think someone in the White House staff would have documented that decision by reducing it to writing as required by the Presidential Records Act (a requirement you continue to ignore)?  

Or maybe you think it's no big deal that Trump took government materials with him without telling the Archives or anyone in the incoming administration and kept them for over a year without returning any of them.  Ex-Presidents have no such prerogative.




> The idea that you are going to "raid" an ex-POTUS's house in search of mis-handled classified materials is ... ludicrous.


How do you know? Have you read the affidavit supporting the warrant?  Do you know what's in the boxes that were retrieved when the warrant was executed?  Maybe it was overreach.  Maybe the affidavit will prove to have been insufficient.  But you don't yet have the necessary information to claim that executing the warrant was ludicrous, especially given Trump's foot-dragging and especially if it's true that, as reported, one of his attorneys sent a letter in June saying there were no more classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

----------


## ClaytonB

> Point was, our opponents don't want locker-room talk *anywhere*.  If you're caught even mumbling it to yourself in your own home and Alexa hears it, you're done for.
> 
> I still think positively of Trump for saying that, so that "solid punch" maybe was not so solid as you think.


Point-taken.

----------


## ClaytonB

> I've already debunked your claim that Trump has some sort of lifetime security clearance.  He doesn't.


You debunked nothing, you copy-pasted some URL.

WaPo: Top secret clearance holders so numerous they include ‘packers/craters’

Just cut it out with the polyanna-routine, as though we don't all know that TS clearance is handed out like candy and is sought after like a Willy Wonky golden ticket to $$$. Here's a Reddit thread on how to get on the gravy-train! 



You have web search, so you can look it up for yourself -- the only criterion to be eligible for consideration for a TS/SCI clearance is that you are "working with" the Federal government. All of the countless Washington NGOs that ex-senior Federal officials hold permanent positions at, "work with" the Federal government at the top echelons, meaning, State, CIA, etc. And ex-POTUS is in highest demand of all, because only POTUS has clearance to "see everything". So, ticking the checkboxes required to maintain TS/SCI for life is no sweat. Probably the only people who come close to being as in-demand as ex-POTUS are ex-NSA, ex-FBI, ex-DNI and folks like that. They've seen the dirt on _everyone_, so their consultancy is worth unlimited $$$. They all have active TS clearance one way or another.




> I'm not denying Trump had the authority to declassify materials while in office.  But I don't believe he ever declassified all the stuff he took with him,




It's all just political theater, and it appears to also be a Hail Mary attempt to lock Trump out of the 2024 race by legal force. Bookmark this post and feel free to point out that I got it wrong if I turn out to have been wrong. You can be sure I'll sleep like a baby tonight...

----------


## TheTexan

The 1st amendment continues to get flushed down the drain.

Man is arrested for saying the "FBI deserves to die"

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/pe...eserve-to-die/

----------


## ClaytonB

> The 1st amendment continues to get flushed down the drain.
> 
> Man is arrested for saying the "FBI deserves to die"
> 
> https://www.mediaite.com/politics/pe...eserve-to-die/


Freshly-baked:

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> It's all just political theater, and it appears to also be a Hail Mary attempt to lock Trump out of the 2024 race by legal force. Bookmark this post and feel free to point out that I got it wrong if I turn out to have been wrong. You can be sure I'll sleep like a baby tonight...


You may sleep like a baby because you haven't a clue.  Did Trump ever apply for security clearance?  Was he ever vetted like almost everyone else who gets one? Was he ever formally granted one? Not at all.  He got access to classified material solely because his job as President required him to have it.  The same goes for the Vice President and Members of Congress.  But once he's out of office, he has no need to access classified information because he's not in a position that requires it.  His "clearance" lasted only so long as he was POTUS and not a second longer.  Any access to classified information thereafter is only with the consent of the sitting President.  

Sure, they may give top secret clearances to a lot of people, but there's still a process that people have to go through to get one.  It's not enough that someone is "working with" the government.  If that were the case, a Private E-1 who's been in the Army for a week and is still in basic training would get one.

Next time, try to post a link to a site that doesn't require a subscription.

I have stated several times that using the statutes to disqualify Trump from being elected in in 2024 won't work.




> And ex-POTUS is in highest demand of all, because only POTUS has clearance to "see everything".


The ex-POTUS had the opportunity to see everything.  And since he has personally guaranteed over $400 miilion in debt I'm sure he would be in very high demand by many foreign countries who would love to buy secrets from him. And yet you think he has lifelong clearance?

----------


## ClaytonB

> His "clearance" lasted only so long as he was POTUS and not a second longer.


Ah yes, the world according to the Biden FBI... 




> It's not enough that someone is "working with" the government.


To be eligible for consideration, yes it is. Search "covered person". Box-packers get TS clearance. It's handed out like candy. All senior elected officials have TS clearance effectively for life if they want it. Again, this only makes sense because if you trusted Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, etc. with the nuclear codes, what the hell is the point in trying to say they can't be trusted with some government documents because "they're not in office any longer." It's idiotic. Obviously, specific SCI is operational in nature and only sitting POTUS would have default access to that. But TS clearance doesn't mean you can read any document you want, it just means you're cleared to read the document if you are read in on the program.

This is not complicated stuff and I find it outrageous that the MSM is baiting confusion about it. Random Internet Person like you being confused... OK, whatever. But the MSM are professionals, this is just inexcusable. And this is why I didn't want to get into this with you. You're confused and you're just posturing, which is typical bot-tactics. If you have some facts to present, present them. Otherwise, beat it!




> I have stated several times that using the statutes to disqualify Trump from being elected in in 2024 won't work.


It's improbable but not _impossible_... hence "Hail Mary".




> The ex-POTUS had the opportunity to see everything.  And since he has personally guaranteed over $400 miilion in debt I'm sure he would be in very high demand by many foreign countries who would love to buy secrets from him. And yet you think he has lifelong clearance?


I will abridge the urge to remark on your intelligence. Let me put it this way:

- Trump knows any and all classified information about who assassinated JFK (if he wanted to)

- Trump knows any and all classified information about what really happened on 9/11 (if he wanted to)

- Trump knows any and all classified information about what is stored at Area 51 (if he wanted to)

- Trump knows any and all classified information about Benghazi

- Trump knows any and all classified information about US military's present and future capabilities, specifically including the blackest of all black projects

... I could go on. The point is that the MSM (and lobotomized online bots who regurgitate MSM talking-points verbatim) is trying to pretend that ex-POTUS is equivalent to ex-Dept. of Education director or some BS bureaucratic position like that. These are not equivalent things. While Trump was POTUS, he was the embodiment and personification of the Executive branch of the United States. That makes him (present-tense) superior rank to any government official except Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Carter... yes, for life, because that's how the honor of rank works. This is so obvious that I don't understand why it even needs to be explained. For Merrick Garland to treat Trump like some random ex-department head is not only transparently political, it's really a kind of insubordination. This is why ex-POTUS has historically been treated as "hands off", meaning, you don't keep trying to settle political scores on the ex-POTUS. Until Trump, of course, because Trump won't play by the Swamp's rules, so it's no-holds-barred war on Trump.

Remember: payback's a b!tch. The Swamp may soon regret opening the Pandora's Box of settling petty political scores on ex-POTUS because I can think of at least 3 ex-POTUS that we know are guilty of war-crimes, just from past headlines. All I can say is they better get their man... everything hangs in the balance...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> That makes him (present-tense) superior rank to any government official except Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Carter... yes, for life, because that's how the honor of rank works.


There's a difference between the honor of rank and the authority of rank.  While the former may make it proper to call Trump (and Bush, Carter, Clinton, and Obama) "Mr. President", it doesn't authorize an ex-POTUS to take and conceal classified documents.  




> For Merrick Garland to treat Trump like some random ex-department head is not only transparently political, it's really a kind of insubordination. This is why ex-POTUS has historically been treated as "hands off", meaning, you don't keep trying to settle political scores on the ex-POTUS. Until Trump, of course, because Trump won't play by the Swamp's rules, so it's no-holds-barred war on Trump.


Insubordination? Are you serious?  Trump has absolutely no authority over Garland, and he isn't entitled to unqualified deference (although I have no doubt he thinks he is).  Moreover, since you have no idea what's in the warrant affidavit or what was retrieved your categorization of Garland's actions as political is pure speculation.  Ex-Presidents may have historically been treated with kid gloves, but how many have taken and concealed classified documents?

I'm just as curious as you are (then again, maybe you don't care) to find out what was retrieved and to see the redacted affidavit, assuming it's released.  But if there's really, _really_ sensitive material involved we may not know for some time.

----------


## ClaytonB

> Insubordination? Are you serious?


Absolutely serious. Dishonoring a veteran is a form of insubordination to the _active_ chain-of-command since the active chain-of-command enforces (or is supposed to enforce) rank and decorum.




> There's a difference between the honor of rank and the authority of rank.  While the former may make it proper to call Trump (and Bush, Carter, Clinton, and Obama) "Mr. President", it doesn't authorize an ex-POTUS to take and conceal classified documents.


Yes, you're right, I'm a sheep and my name is Pollyanna and ex-POTUS should go to jail if he touches a classified document 1 second after leaving office... hurrr durrr

Once again: Be careful what you wish for...




> I'm just as curious as you are (then again, maybe you don't care)


And they said leftists can't learn... look at him go!

You got it, sonny... I don't give a damn.

----------


## acptulsa

> And they said leftists can't learn... look at him go!


Are you capable of going a full day without using YER A LEFTIST as a substitute for a rational argument?

----------


## TheTexan

> Are you capable of going a full day without using YER A LEFTIST as a substitute for a rational argument?


Does it matter?  When it comes to Sonny Tufts, I just assume anyone arguing with him is doing it for their own $#@!s & giggles, and not for anyone's edification.

----------


## ClaytonB

> Does it matter?  When it comes to Sonny Tufts, I just assume anyone arguing with him is doing it for their own $#@!s & giggles, and not for anyone's edification.




This man gets it...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Absolutely serious. Dishonoring a veteran is a form of insubordination to the _active_ chain-of-command since the active chain-of-command enforces (or is supposed to enforce) rank and decorum.


We aren't talking about veterans, and executing a search warrant isn't dishonoring anyone.  Or are you suggesting that under no circumstances should the home of a veteran or an ex-President ever be the subject of a search warrant?  And you know what's really dishonorable?  Analogizing Donald "Bone Spurs" Trump to a military vet.

Look, Merrick Garland had been a judge for 24 years before becoming AG, and he obviously knows the law of probable cause as it relates to a search warrant.  It’s very hard for me to believe that he would have approved the application for the warrant to search Mar-a-Lago unless he felt the information in the affidavit was solid, especially considering the political ramifications and the certainty that the whole thing would backfire if the case for the warrant wasn’t strong enough.  You may not like his politics or those of the administration he serves, but he isn't stupid.  He knew exactly what was at stake.

----------


## TheTexan

> It’s very hard for me to believe that he would have approved the application for the warrant to search Mar-a-Lago unless he felt the information in the affidavit was solid


And thus lies the root of the issue.

You're living in a different reality than we are.

In the reality we live in, the media, courts, and federal bureau's have repeatedly and consistently proved their dishonesty, abuse, & manipulation.  Trump is a lightning rod for this abuse, but certainly the scope of their dishonesty is not limited just to Trump.

And to us, you would have to be Helen $#@!in Keller to have not seen this for yourself.

You still live in a reality, where you think everything is operating normally and fairly.  Enjoy your illusion, while it lasts...

----------


## ClaytonB

> We aren't talking about veterans,




Does "Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces" ring a bell? The President is not part of the military but he holds the highest rank (CINC). I think Wikipedia calls it "authority" instead of "rank", but that's just parsing words. The point is that every member of the joint-chiefs salutes CINC because he outranks them and he is their commander. You can pretend that's not a "real" veteran, but I don't know what else you would call the commander of the entire US military in wartime (and we are in permanent war since 9/11.)





> It’s very hard for me to believe that ...


... a lifelong political figure would go on a politically-motivated witch-hunt after 5+ years of non-stop political witch-hunts targeting Trump. You're one tough skeptic!!




> considering the political ramifications and the certainty that the whole thing would backfire


Every blunder in the World Chess Championship was made after long deliberation and consideration. But it was still a blunder.




> he isn't stupid.  He knew exactly what was at stake.


Gentlemen, place your bets...

For those hanging their hat on the Merrick Garland tree, here, have a mercy-hit of some Hopium... you're gonna need it...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It’s very hard for me to believe that he would have approved the application for the warrant to search Mar-a-Lago unless he felt the information in the affidavit was solid, especially considering the political *ramifications* and the *certainty* that the whole thing would *backfire* if the case for the warrant wasn’t *strong enough*.  You may not like his politics or those of the administration he serves, but he isn't stupid.  He knew exactly what was at stake.


"Ramifications" (i.e., consequences) ... as applied by whom? What "certainty"? "Backfire" ... in what way? "Strong enough" ... according to whom?

Assuming for the sake of argument that the information in the affidavit was *not* "solid" (whatever "solid" means, as decided by whomever), what reason is there to think that Garland would suffer any serious or significant consequences - apart, at worst, from perhaps being fired (or "allowed to retire") as AG? As for "what was at stake" (and continuing with our assumption), he certainly won't have been the first politician to have fallen on his sword (if it even went that far) as the result of a miscalculation of the odds for some politically motivated gambit.

----------


## dannno

> Does it matter?  When it comes to Sonny Tufts, I just assume anyone arguing with him is doing it for their own $#@!s & giggles, and not for anyone's edification.


After trying to argue that CNN is credible on this type of information, I'd be curious about their score on the Hoax quiz.

 @Sonny Tufts


Hoax Quiz


How many of these hoaxes do you still believe are true?

1. Russia Collusion Hoax

2. Steele Dossier hooker story

3. Russia paying bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan

4. Trump called Neo-Nazis "Fine people."

5. Trump suggested drinking/injecting bleach to fight COVID

6. Trump overfed koi fish in Japan

7. Trump cleared protesters with tear gas for a bible photo op

8. Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation

9. Elections were fair because no court found major fraud.

10. January 6th was an "insurrection" to overthrow the government

11. Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of The Beast

12. Border Patrol Agents whipped illegal border crossers

----------


## ClaytonB

> Hoax Quiz
> ...
> 11. Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of The Beast


This one actually happened... there's photographic evidence:

----------


## acptulsa

> 11. Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of The Beast


Which one?

----------


## RJB

> Does it matter?  When it comes to Sonny Tufts, I just assume anyone arguing with him is doing it for their own $#@!s & giggles, and not for anyone's edification.


I've been pushing for NorthCarolinaLiberty to be made a moderator for years.

----------


## acptulsa

Why do Republicans love shooting themselves in the foot so much?  As if Democrats and the crooked ass election system aren't enough to deal with, they're insisting on, or these shills would have us believe they're bound and determined to be,  nominating the bastard who created Operation Warp Speed.

People lost loved ones to that jab.  They haven't forgotten.  Republicans could reap that whirlwind in spades.  All they have to do is nominate someone who had nothing to do with it.

They're so determined to shove Trump back down the lib's throats they going to try to shove him down the throats of huge swaths of independent voters who would otherwise be theirs, but will not forget that Trumpcine and will not forgive.

I can't imagine a better way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  If I were running in these midterms I'd tell Trump to please kindly ignore me.  I don't want to be for him or against him.  I would want him out of it.

There's dumb, there's stupid, and then there's this.  I don't know if there's a word for this level of stupidity.

----------


## Anti Globalist

> Why do Republicans love shooting themselves in the foot so much?  As if Democrats and the crooked ass election system aren't enough to deal with, they're insisting on, or these shills would have us believe they're bound and determined to be,  nominating the bastard who created Operation Warp Speed.
> 
> People lost loved ones to that jab.  They haven't forgotten.  Republicans could reap that whirlwind in spades.  All they have to do is nominate someone who had nothing to do with it.
> 
> They're so determined to shove Trump back down the lib's throats they going to try to shove him down the throats of huge swaths of independent voters who would otherwise be theirs, but will not forget that Trumpcine and will not forgive.
> 
> I can't imagine a better way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  If I were running in these midterms I'd tell Trump to please kindly ignore me.  I don't want to be for him or against him.  I would want him out of it.
> 
> There's dumb, there's stupid, and then there's this.  I don't know if there's a word for this level of stupidity.


To add to this, the Democrats are clearly going to do a complete 360 on the vaccines within the next two years and start calling them unsafe and dangerous.  They are clearly setting Trump up to be responsible and the fall guy for the medical fallout.  Then they'll use Biden's dementia ridden state as an excuse and a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why Biden had no idea the vaccines were dangerous.

----------


## ClaytonB

Trump still has _enormous_ brand power and broad appeal not only in the US but internationally, as well. Supposing that Trump-the-man is so compromised in the eyes of his base, then it would still be absurd for the GOP to throw the baby out with the bathwater (pretend Trump never existed, which is what the McConnell RINOs and neocons are doing.) The fact that the RINO/neocons won't even consider the possibility of cooperating with Trump to get his backing/endorsement on a ticket shows what's really going on here. Remember Liz Cheney? Trump's picks have a habit of ... _#WINNING_. So, even if you go with the most tailor-made gaslighting conspiracy-theory explanation that Trump is a Democrat torpedo against the GOP, yada-yada-yada, you can't explain why the RINO/neocon dinosaurs who have a death-grip on the non-MAGA GOP, won't even work with Trump behind-the-scenes for a 2024 ticket that isn't Trump but with Trump's endorsement. Trump is simply Public Enemy #1 -- weapons-free, shoot-to-kill, all things Trump are to be shot-on-sight.

I'm trying to understand the logic behind your arguments and I can't even decode what your theory is beyond "Trump evil, Trump-go-away-forever."

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

> To add to this, the Democrats are clearly going to do a complete 360 on the vaccines within the next two years and start calling them unsafe and dangerous.  They are clearly setting Trump up to be responsible and the fall guy for the medical fallout.  Then they'll use Biden's dementia ridden state as an excuse and a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why Biden had no idea the vaccines were dangerous.


I disagree. Vaccines won't be demonized. The next pandemic is around the corner. They want compliance. They want people on alert and tuned in so they know what to do and when to do it. They will never let this power get deteriorated by demonizing vaccines or CDC or WHO or any entity. After all it is about keeping you safe!

----------


## acptulsa

> Trump still has _enormous_ brand power and broad appeal not only in the US but internationally, as well.


So does the Edsel.

Republican partisans may be infinitely willing to support him, even after he paid Big Pharma billions to develop poison and sell it.  Republican partisans may have skin in the insult of the search warrant.  But independent voters outnumber them, and don't care about that crap.  They're being broken.  That's what they care about.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> In the reality we live in, the media, courts, and federal bureau's have repeatedly and consistently proved their dishonesty, abuse, & manipulation.


I suggest you would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to not realize Trump has done exactly the same thing. 

Btw, what are the court decisions you feel were dishonest, abusive, or manipulative?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The President is not part of the military


Which is precisely why comparing the respect owed to an ex-President to that owed to someone who has actually served in the military (especially one who served in a combat zone) is inapposite.




> a lifelong political figure


Federal judges have lifetime tenure.   They don't run for office or have to pander to their base.

----------


## TheTexan

> I suggest you would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to not realize Trump has done exactly the same thing. 
> 
> Btw, what are the court decisions you feel were dishonest, abusive, or manipulative?


As I said, different realities.  It simply is not worth my time to provide examples, as they are numerous and easily available to those living in this side of reality.

----------


## TheTexan

> Unless you've seen an unredacted copy of the affidavit as well as all of the other information DOJ has, this is pure speculation.  You have no bleedin' clue whether anything holds up to scrutiny.


There is basically a 0.1% chance that the raid wasn't politically motivated.

If they aren't going to give us the unredacted copy of the affidavit that shows otherwise, we are going to assume (and very safely so) that this was an extreme government overreach, as all of the available information that we have points in that direction, and is consistent with a 7+year history of politically motivated federal abuse.

At this point, you're the one speculating... that it was not overreach.

----------


## Invisible Man

> There is basically a 0.1% chance that the raid wasn't politically motivated.
> 
> If they aren't going to give us the unredacted copy of the affidavit that shows otherwise, we are going to assume (and very safely so) that this was an extreme government overreach, as all of the available information that we have points in that direction, and is consistent with a 7+year history of politically motivated federal abuse.
> 
> At this point, you're the one speculating... that it was not overreach.


Trump will get the last laugh though. Even if they don't publish an unredacted copy of the affidavit, Trump will be able to produce his own records proving that any documents in his possession that had at one time been classified no longer were, because he personally declassified them.

Boy, will he make a fool of Garland and the FBI then! They walked right into his trap!

Because Trump is smart, and he will be able to prove that, right?

----------


## TheTexan

> Trump will get the last laugh though. Even if they don't publish an unredacted copy of the affidavit, Trump will be able to produce his own records proving that any documents in his possession that had at one time been classified no longer were, because he personally declassified them.
> 
> Boy, will he make a fool of Garland and the FBI then! They walked right into his trap!
> 
> Because Trump is smart, and he will be able to prove that, right?


All this does is create more division.

Beautiful, delectable, division.

It will be me getting the last laugh

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> There is basically a 0.1% chance that the raid wasn't politically motivated.
> 
> If they aren't going to give us the unredacted copy of the affidavit that shows otherwise, we are going to assume (and very safely so) that this was an extreme government overreach, as all of the available information that we have points in that direction, and is consistent with a 7+year history of politically motivated federal abuse.
> 
> At this point, you're the one speculating... that it was not overreach.


I wasn't addressing whether it was politically motivated;  I was responding to fcreature's claim that everything is so clear that the search is a violation of the 4th Amendment and can't hold up to scrutiny.  That will be determined by the courts, although there are probably some who are convinced the federal judiciary is full of commies who get their instructions on how to rule straight from Moscow or Beijing and that any decision against Trump is a violation of the Constitution, even though they don't know squat about the law.

There's no way an unredacted copy of the affidavit will be released (it's due to be released in a few minutes).  If uninformed folks want to conclude that the search was an overreach, so be it.  But I suggest to you that (a) Trump's taking material (some of which was classified) that didn't belong to him, (b) his stonewalling the Archives for over a year in their attempts to get it back, and (c) the failure of less intrusive means to recover the material are consistent with the view that the search wasn't overreach.

----------


## TheTexan

> I wasn't addressing whether it was politically motivated;  I was responding to fcreature's claim that everything is so clear that the search is a violation of the 4th Amendment and can't hold up to scrutiny.  That will be determined by the courts, although there are probably some who are convinced the federal judiciary is full of commies who get their instructions on how to rule straight from Moscow or Beijing and that any decision against Trump is a violation of the Constitution, even though they don't know squat about the law.
> 
> There's no way an unredacted copy of the affidavit will be released (it's due to be released in a few minutes).  If uninformed folks want to conclude that the search was an overreach, so be it.  But I suggest to you that (a) Trump's taking material (some of which was classified) that didn't belong to him, (b) his stonewalling the Archives for over a year in their attempts to get it back, and (c) the failure of less intrusive means to recover the material are consistent with the view that the search wasn't overreach.


You say "uninformed".  I have the same information that you do.  We just choose to interpret in 2 different ways.

Because, again, we live in 2 different realities.

I used to think people in your reality were uninformed.

If I just provided them the right information they would come around to reason.

If I just presented the information in the right way they would come around to reason.

Nope.

It took many years to dispel myself of that notion.

You should do the same.

Expecting us to come to your point of view, will never happen, for the same reason.

2 different realities.

----------


## TheTexan

The reasons for the redactions have been published... and almost all of the reasons are themselves redacted.  LOL

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...b-daef43180000

----------


## TheTexan



----------


## TheTexan

And the redacted affidavit:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...f-dafe79d30000

----------


## TheTexan

Did a quick read through the redacted affidavit... and there's nothing in there we don't already know.  Huge chunks of it are redacted, because, well <redacted>.

Affidavit is huge nothing burger in its redacted form

----------


## Invisible Man

> And the redacted affidavit:
> 
> https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...f-dafe79d30000


They are really doubling down on that claim that he had classified documents.

They sure will have egg on their faces when the National Declassification Center tells them that all those documents had been declassified before Trump left office. Even their own defenders in the media won't be able to refrain from asking the obvious question of, "Why didn't you check to see if the documents had been declassified before the raid?" I can't wait!

And then the next thing to happen after that is Trump will personally publicize the declassified documents, which he for some unknown reason never did prior to the raid, but which we need not question will be motivated by the good of the country.

----------


## TheTexan

> They are really doubling down on that claim that he had classified documents.
> 
> They sure will have egg on their faces when the National Declassification Center tells them that all those documents had been declassified before Trump left office. Even their own defenders in the media won't be able to refrain from asking the obvious question of, "Why didn't you check to see if the documents had been declassified before the raid?" I can't wait!
> 
> And then the next thing to happen after that is Trump will personally publicize the declassified documents, which he for some unknown reason never did prior to the raid, but which we need not question will be motivated by the good of the country.


Yes, and then Trump will win in 2024 and the first thing he's going to do is pardon the Jan 6 guys, just like he promised.

It's gonna be awesome

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> ...That will be determined by the courts, although there are probably some who are convinced the federal judiciary is full of commies who get their instructions on how to rule straight from Moscow or Beijing and that any decision against Trump is a violation of the Constitution, even though they don't know squat about the law.
> ...


Who’s to say which authoritarian-socialist-facist-crony-kleptocrat-commies make the decisions? Seems to be a bunch of deep staters and leftovers from the Obama Administration making the decisions in DC. They may consult with their Euro or Sino counterparts on many issues, but they are probably doing this all on their own.




> There's no way an unredacted copy of the affidavit will be released (it's due to be released in a few minutes).


Oh yeah, redacted alright.




> If uninformed folks want to conclude that the search was an overreach, so be it.  But I suggest to you that (a) Trump's taking material (some of which was classified) that didn't belong to him, (b) his stonewalling the Archives for over a year in their attempts to get it back, and (c) the failure of less intrusive means to recover the material are consistent with the view that the search wasn't overreach.


Sure. Standard procedure. They do this to every ex-President. 

If it wasn't mishandling of some papers, they could also raid his house to check the plumbing (and anything else they might find in the house). An insider testified that high flow shower heads and toilets were installed, against government regulations.

----------


## Occam's Banana

https://twitter.com/RickyDoggin/stat...98834317340673

----------


## Occam's Banana

https://twitter.com/GhostGcom/status...60735970373632

----------


## dannno

> I don't think Trump is Hitler.  I think he's a not very bright narcissist who shares a talent with Hitler, Jim Jones, the folks at the Westboro Baptist Church, Jimmy Swaggart, Alex Jones, Mao, snake oil salesmen, and countless others: the ability to make people believe absolute B.S.





> How did you score on the Hoax quiz I posted?


Also, can you name one thing that I believe that Trump got me to believe that you can prove is incorrect? I got a list of potentially 12 things you believe that I can demonstrably prove are BS, but you haven't given us your score on the quiz. I'm wondering if there is a single thing in the entire world you can prove I believe that is false that Trump made me believe. All of the things you think I believe that are wrong are likely based on feelings and emotion, not based on any demonstrable evidence. But I'd love to see at least just one if you've got one.

----------


## dannno

> With the exception of certain information dealing with nuclear technology (which a President cannot unilaterally declassify), no one's disputing Trump's authority to declassify. But with respect to the matrerials at Mar-a-Lago there's a lot of dispute about whether he actually did.
> 
> But the issue about whether the material was classified or not doesn't affect the fact that the stuff didn't belong to Trump. Under the Presidential Records Act the Archivist, not Trump, had the right and duty to possess and safeguard it. Moreover, the Archivist had the duty to "deposit all such Presidential records in a Presidential archival depository or another archival facility operated by the United States." But the fact that some of the material was classified bears on the seriousness of the situation and the need for a warrant when other less intrusive attempts to retrieve the stuff failed.


Why do you have to keep contradicting yourself? If you admit he can declassify anything, then he didn't take any classified material. He declassified it. The President doesn't need any process to declassify something. A process exists, the President will often use that process, but the President has the power to do it anyway, with or without a process. 

Then you shift the goalposts to he can't take Presidential records. That's a different topic. The primary claim is he can't take classified information. 

Then you say he can't declassify information dealing with nuclear technology. Well, he can declassify information related to nuclear technology, but not _certain_ information dealing with nuclear technology.. of which there is no proof he did that, nor do we know whether that would pass Constitutional muster.





> So the question remains: why did Trump take the classified materials to begin with and why did he resist their return?


Every single person on the right can answer this question, and you don't have a clue? You need to diversify your news sources. A lot of what he took was related to Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which he believed would be destroyed if he left it there. You don't think he made copies?

----------


## Invisible Man

> If you admit he can declassify anything, then he didn't take any classified material. He declassified it.


No. That doesn't logically follow.

Just because he had the authority to declassify the documents doesn't mean he actually did.

If he did, let's see him prove he did. If he thinks he did, but he has no proof that he did because he thinks he declassified them by some secret fiat that only he knows about, while he left the documents to be officially kept in their classified status as far as the offices of the government that keep records of that are concerned, then he's really an idiot and asked for everything that happened.

----------


## TheTexan

> Just because he had the authority to declassify the documents doesn't mean he actually did.
> 
> If he did, let's see him prove he did.


If the documents they took are the Crossfire Hurricane docs, then yes, he actually did.

If the Left wants to make the ridiculous claim that these are not declassified because the various formalities haven't been completed and therefore it's worthy of a raid on his home, they are free to make that argument, but it's also a transparently ridiculous argument to make.

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov...investigation/

----------


## dannno

> No. That doesn't logically follow.
> 
> Just because he had the authority to declassify the documents doesn't mean he actually did.
> 
> If he did, let's see him prove he did. If he thinks he did, but he has no proof that he did because he thinks he declassified them by some secret fiat that only he knows about, while he left the documents to be officially kept in their classified status as far as the offices of the government that keep records of that are concerned, then he's really an idiot and asked for everything that happened.


The President has the unilateral authority to declassify documents. Period. If you want to know whether the documents at Mar-a-lago were declassified, you just have to ask him. 

For somebody to be convicted of a crime, you need to prove they are guilty. The person being investigated does not need to prove they are innocent. 

You are trying to flip all of the important principles of the criminal justice system on its head by asking that Trump prove he is innocent. To prove he is guilty, would require that Trump admit he did not declassify the documents. That is literally the only thing that could prove he is guilty in our criminal justice system.

----------


## dannno

> If the documents they took are the Crossfire Hurricane docs, then yes, he actually did.
> 
> If the Left wants to make the ridiculous claim that these are not declassified because the various formalities haven't been completed and therefore it's worthy of a raid on his home, they are free to make that argument, but it's also a transparently ridiculous argument to make.
> 
> https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov...investigation/


These documents implicate the FBI in criminal activity. It's the same group of people who were implicated in this criminal activity at the FBI that were behind the raid, to try and get the documents back. 

It's too bad humans haven't invented a copy machine.

----------


## Invisible Man

> If the documents they took are the Crossfire Hurricane docs, then yes, he actually did.
> 
> If the Left wants to make the ridiculous claim that these are not declassified because the various formalities haven't been completed and therefore it's worthy of a raid on his home, they are free to make that argument, but it's also a transparently ridiculous argument to make.
> 
> https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov...investigation/


And by the same token, if those documents are the documents in question, then Trump has nothing at all to worry about, and it's Garland and everyone in the FBI who was involved in this who are idiots, and who are about to be proven so.

I am happy to wait and see how this plays out.

But which do you think is more likely? Everyone involved in this raid never bothered to confirm that the documents they thought were classified actually were classified, and in fact somehow missed that Trump publicly put out a memorandum declassifying all of the documents in question? Or Trump actually did have other documents that are classified, with no record of their having ever been declassified?

If it's the former, then this is not something Garland or anybody else involved in the raid will be able to get away with. And Trump could easily come right out and say that's exactly what happened.

And while we're on the subject, if Trump wanted the contents of all those Crossfire Hurricane documents published, and if he had the documents, why didn't he himself publish them? It didn't have to be left up to Biden. The documents were declassified. They were legally allowed to be shared with the public. What was Trump waiting for? For that matter, what's he still waiting for now? He may not have the documents, but I bet he and others in his circle know what was in them and are free to talk about all that non-classified material. It's time to poop or get off the pot.

----------


## Invisible Man

> The President has the unilateral authority to declassify documents. Period. If you want to know whether the documents at Mar-a-lago were declassified, you just have to ask him.


But he's not president any more. He's just an ex-president. He could lie about it. Can he prove that he declassified them when he was president and had the authority to declassify them?

If not, then even if we suppose for the sake of argument that it's possible for the president to declassify documents without telling anyone, so that the agency of the government tasked with keeping record of the declassification of documents has no record of this, and no one but he himself knows, why in the world would he consider that a good idea?

Again, if he did something that stupid, then he asked for this.

----------


## Invisible Man

> These documents implicate the FBI in criminal activity.



It sure would have been nice if Trump had blown the whistle on this criminal FBI activity that he had proof of for all that time in documents that he had personally declassified.

----------


## TheTexan

> The President has the unilateral authority to declassify documents. Period. If you want to know whether the documents at Mar-a-lago were declassified, you just have to ask him. 
> 
> For somebody to be convicted of a crime, you need to prove they are guilty. The person being investigated does not need to prove they are innocent. 
> 
> You are trying to flip all of the important principles of the criminal justice system on its head by asking that Trump prove he is innocent. To prove he is guilty, would require that Trump admit he did not declassify the documents. That is literally the only thing that could prove he is guilty in our criminal justice system.


This is unequivocally the correct way to look at this.

Innocent until proven guilty, still means something to some of us.

If anyone thinks that it's ridiculous that Trump can "claim" to have "declassified" stuff when he so obviously did not (like omg its so obvious), then *change the law* to specify that there needs to be required documentation in order to claim such a thing.

The law as it stands does not specify a goddamn thing related to process, probably because noone thought anyone would ever be retarded enough to raid a President's home over such a trivial thing.  (and yes, it is trivial, he was once trusted with the goddamn nukes, whatever boxes he wants to keep in his basement is irrelevant)

----------


## TheTexan

> But he's not president any more. He's just an ex-president. He could lie about it. Can he prove that he declassified them when he was president and had the authority to declassify them?


He doesn't have to prove that he declassified them.

The state has to prove that he didn't.

That's the law as it stands currently.  If that sounds ridiculous because he could just lie about it... then change the law.

----------


## Invisible Man

> He doesn't have to prove that he declassified them.


For the sake of argument, let's suppose you're right.

Why wouldn't he? How stupid must he be if that's what he did and he somehow thought it would work out for him, when he could have simply gone through the existing legal process of declassifying documents so that the rest of the government would actually know they were declassified? If he actually honestly wanted the documents to be declassified, why didn't he do that?

And if he actually believes that he declassified them, and if he honestly did that so that nefarious secrets about criminal deep state activity would get out for the good of the country, then why didn't he release this declassified information he had?

----------


## TheTexan

> then why didn't he release this declassified information he had?


One reasonable explanation... at the advice of his attorneys.

If the material was going to be released anyway (not an unreasonable expectation in a non-clown-world context), there wouldn't have been much pressure for him to release it personally.

----------


## TheTexan

> FWhy wouldn't he? How stupid must he be if that's what he did and he somehow thought it would work out for him, when he could have simply gone through the existing legal process of declassifying documents so that the rest of the government would actually know they were declassified? If he actually honestly wanted the documents to be declassified, why didn't he do that?


Would it matter if he did?  The same deep state that is throwing him under the bus now, would not be rushing to his aid to help him prove that he did in fact declassify anything.  And if he kept documents to prove it... they may have just been taken along with everything else.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

> Would it matter if he did?  The same deep state that is throwing him under the bus now, would not be rushing to his aid to help him prove that he did in fact declassify anything.  And if he kept documents to prove it... they may have just been taken along with everything else.


If I were Trump I would have made copies of anything I thought would disappear in a raid.

----------


## Invisible Man

> One reasonable explanation... at the advice of his attorneys.
> 
> If the material was going to be released anyway (not an unreasonable expectation in a non-clown-world context), there wouldn't have been much pressure for him to release it personally.


If it were going to be released anyway, that would presuppose that his method of declassifying it were something other than him secretly declaring it unclassified just by thinking the thought and not telling anyone.

I have no interest in defending Garland or the FBI, or the whole system of classification of government documents. I'm happy to criticize both sides.

But this idea that Trump could have just somehow declassified documents secretly in a way that only he knows about, while leaving all the classified markings on them, leaving them in a status of classified in every government record, and thinking that as an ex-president it should be enough for him to just say that he declassified them back when he was president, and that should pass muster, is so mind bogglingly stupid it's infuriating. I don't know if Trump himself is actually resorting to an argument that's that ridiculous, or if it's just his lemmings that are. But either way, it's not the kind of thing that can be just let pass.

----------


## TheTexan

> If I were Trump I would have made copies of anything I thought would disappear in a raid.


And when you produced those documents you would get charged with obstruction.  Add it to the list of crimes you committed.

----------


## TheTexan

> If it were going to be released anyway, that would presuppose that his method of declassifying it were something other than him secretly declaring it unclassified just by thinking the thought and not telling anyone.


I was referring to the Jan 19 EO where he very clearly did declassify the Crossfire Hurricane documents.  If it's not the CH documents, then there would be no obvious reason for him or anyone to release anything, and your whole point becomes moot.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

> And when you produced those documents you would get charged with obstruction.  Add it to the list of crimes you committed.


No need to produce them until they tell you they lost the originals.

----------


## TheTexan

> No need to produce them until they tell you they lost the originals.


Maybe, but again, a lot of the advice/assumptions/criticism in this thread assumes that we aren't living a lawless $#@!ing clown world to begin with.

Any good advice for staying legally protected in the past, no longer really applies.  And when I say that, I mean in a general sense across the board, and not just this.

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

> Maybe, but again, a lot of the advice/assumptions/criticism in this thread assumes that we aren't living a lawless $#@!ing clown world to begin with.
> 
> Any good advice for staying legally protected in the past, no longer really applies.  And when I say that, I mean in a general sense across the board, and not just this.


I agree. The law is extremely malleable at this time.

----------


## ClaytonB

> He doesn't have to prove that he declassified them.
> 
> The state has to prove that he didn't.
> 
> That's the law as it stands currently.  If that sounds ridiculous because he could just lie about it... then change the law.

----------


## Todd

> It sure would have been nice if Trump had blown the whistle on this criminal FBI activity that he had proof of for all that time in documents that he had personally declassified.


Geez...Can't you see it's just him playing that 3D 4D bomb diggity chess he's been playing now going on 6 years.  You know.....Locking up Hillary, ending all the foreign intervention, and draining his lizard....er....I mean Swamp.

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## Invisible Man

> I was referring to the Jan 19 EO where he very clearly did declassify the Crossfire Hurricane documents.  If it's not the CH documents, then there would be no obvious reason for him or anyone to release anything, and your whole point becomes moot.


I am certain that the federal government possesses tons and tons of classified documents related to countless things other than CH that there are many good reasons for anyone who cares about the country or justice to release. And if the imaginarily declassified documents were not such that anyone would have reason to release them, then by the same token why declassify them? It would only make the notion that he did secretly declassify whatever the documents were all the more ludicrous if he had no desire for them to be released.

----------


## Snowball

> I am certain that the federal government possesses tons and tons of classified documents related to countless things other than CH that there are many good reasons for anyone who cares about the country or justice to release. And if the imaginarily declassified documents were not such that anyone would have reason to release them, then by the same token why declassify them. It would only make the notion that he did secretly declassify whatever the documents were all the more ludicrous if he had no desire for them to be released.


Although there is ample reason to suspect that this is all an attempt to tie up Trump so he cannot campaign effectively, if the documents were truly declassified, then he had the power the release them, not only to others in his administration, none of whom are saying he did that, but to the public-at-large. He didn't do it. So, therefore we have to assume that his "declassification" was only for purposes of benefit to himself and those in his personal circle at Mar-a-Lago, or anyone he decided to share them with... is that declassification? No. 

Trump isn't giving us ANY information about these documents. He lied already when he said they were just mementos and stuff. These are extremely serious charges with lots of TOP LEVEL classified material of VARIOUS agency sources and they are VOLATILE.

It's up to Trump to tell us more about them. He won't -- and didn't when he had the power. That's because he never declassified them. Trump did absolutely NOTHING to declassify or reveal found information while he was President about the lies and tales and ongoing disinformation this country performs against not only foreign countries but ourselves -- Americans. That's his choice just like it's the choice of his adherents to LARP 5d chess at every event surrounding him. His automatic defenders need to wake up and smell the coffee. He's no selfless hero. What level of courage or convictions the man actually possesses is highly debatable.

----------


## Invisible Man

> He doesn't have to prove that he declassified them.
> 
> The state has to prove that he didn't.


That's correct. They have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. As in, it's not enough to counter their proof with some imaginary and silly hypothetical possibility that no reasonable person would buy. They must only overcome such doubts as are actually reasonable.

I don't know what evidence the case against Trump will be built on. But for the sake of argument, suppose the feds have evidence like the following: eyewitnesses testifying that they saw documents marked as "classified" or "top secret" and other such things in Trump's home, documents having those markings that were recovered in their raid complete with photographs and a solid chain of custody, current up to date records in government agencies of those documents still being classified, confirmation from the National Declassification Center that Trump never declassified those documents pursuant to the legal procedures that existed when he was president and that had been established by former presidents with the very same power over declassification that you have repeatedly referred to and that Trump himself never officially altered and that his own administration followed for the entirety of his tenure and that are still in place and being followed by the Biden administration today.

And suppose that Trump's attempt to cast reasonable doubt on that evidence is a claim that he makes now for the first time as an ex-president to the effect that back when he was president he secretly declassified the classified documents he later was caught having simply by thinking the thought and not telling anyone until after he was caught with them later on as an ex-president, with no reasonable explanation as to why he chose to declassify them that way if he really wanted to be able to continue to treat them as declassified later on when he was no longer going to be president.

Trump's silly explanation would not rise to the level of a reasonable doubt, and the government's case against him would easily stand as proven.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Although there is ample reason to suspect that this is all an attempt to tie up Trump so he cannot campaign effectively, if the documents were truly declassified, then he had the power the release them, not only to others in his administration, none of whom are saying he did that, but to the public-at-large. He didn't do it. So, therefore we have to assume that his "declassification" was only for purposes of benefit to himself and those in his personal circle at Mar-a-Lago, or anyone he decided to share them with... is that declassification? No.


Exactly.

There was a comment earlier in the thread where someone said that if Obama had done this same thing they would question his motives, but with Trump they have no question that he only did it for the good of the country.

That kind of TDS is what bothers me so much.

Just because we don't support Garland or the FBI or the raid doesn't mean we have to swing the pendulum over to the side of believing such silliness.

----------


## Snowball

> Exactly.
> 
> There was a comment earlier in the thread where someone said that if Obama had done this same thing they would question his motives, but with Trump they have no question that he only did it for the good of the country.
> 
> That kind of TDS is what bothers me so much.
> 
> Just because we don't support Garland or the FBI or the raid doesn't mean we have to swing the pendulum over to the side of believing such silliness.


Less silly would be the conclusion that he's a rat working for some other entity and grabbed this information to share it with that party. Everyone needs to take another look at the markings and ask themselves -- CUI BONO ? 

184 unique documents bearing classification markings
67 documents marked as *CONFIDENTIAL*
92 documents marked as *SECRET*
25 documents marked as *TOP SECRET*
other documents marked as *HCS, FISA, ORCON, NOFORN, and SI*.
which means they contain *NDI*.
Handwritten notes

TOP SECRET - Top Level Sensitive Compartmented Information
HCS - Human Control System (HUMINT) Human Intelligence
FISA - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
ORCON - Originator Controlled Military, Army Intelligence
NOFORN - No Foreign National 
SI - Sensitive Information
NDI - National Defense Intelligence

What in all *FVCK* was he doing with this stuff at Mar-a-Lago? He ain't talking.. all he does is whine.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Also, can you name one thing that I believe that Trump got me to believe that you can prove is incorrect?  I got a list of potentially 12 things you believe that I can demonstrably prove are BS, but you haven't given us your score on the quiz.


Prove that I believe all of the things on your list.  

But I do believe #9, and the burden's not on me to prove it's true. I don't know whether you believe the election was stolen or, if you do, whether it's because you swallowed Trump's claims that it was.  But the undeniable fact is that Trump and his lemmings filed a boatload of lawsuits seeking to change the results and failed miserably. In addition, some of his lemmings sent phony slates of electors to the National Archives; that didn't work either.  

So you think you can demonstrably prove that the claim that the election was fair because there was no major fraud is BS?  Well why didn't Trump hire you?

The bottom line is that after all of the legal procedures for determining the outcome of the election concluded, Biden was declared the winner, despite all of the lawsuits and despite Trump's moronic attempt to have Pence do something in connection with the counting of the electoral votes that he had no authority to do.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The President doesn't need any process to declassify something.


The Presidential Records Act (44 USC 2203) provides, "Through the implementation of records management controls and other necessary actions, the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of the President's constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are preserved and maintained as Presidential records"  If he really declassified something without documenting it, he violated this provision. 

Documents record the Preident's phone calls, visitors, Executive Orders, travels, and a host of other things.  Hell, they may even record when he takes a dump.  But declassifying top secret material?  That doesn't need to be documented?  LOL!




> Every single person on the right can answer this question, and you don't have a clue? You need to diversify your news sources. A lot of what he took was related to Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which he believed would be destroyed if he left it there. You don't think he made copies?


How do you know what he took?  Have you seen what's in the boxes that were retrieved in the execution of the search warrant?

----------


## ClaytonB

> What in all *FVCK* was he doing with this stuff at Mar-a-Lago? He ain't talking.. all he does is whine.


Gee, I wonder what ex-POTUS is doing with documents about his time as POTUS... especially given the fact that the witch-hunt over what he was doing (pre-POTUS, POTUS and now ex-POTUS) continues, amain.

HUGE mystery...

----------


## fcreature

> then why didn't he release this declassified information he had?


You are making this so much more complicated than it is.

Declassification !== public release

Declassification is much easier, and completely and totally at POTUS's discretion. Public release is much trickier, and very very likely to put him in prison on obstruction charges or some other nonsense process crimes. This is why there are always on-going investigations involving the materials Trump wanted to declassify (and eventually did).

I think there _may_ have been ways to publicly release the documents while insulating himself from prosecution, but it would have been very risky and would have required congressional support, very good lawyers and people he could trust. As I have also said, Trump failed in this regard - he had none of that. But I don't blame him very much because in all likelihood it would have resulted in him sitting in prison now, and I can understand why he wouldn't like that outcome.

----------


## fcreature

> if the documents were truly declassified, then he had the power the release them, not only to others in his administration, none of whom are saying he did that, but to the public-at-large


This is not true.

----------


## ClaytonB

> No. That doesn't logically follow.
> 
> Just because he had the authority to declassify the documents doesn't mean he actually did.
> 
> If he did, let's see him prove he did. If he thinks he did, but he has no proof that he did because he thinks he declassified them by some secret fiat that only he knows about, while he left the documents to be officially kept in their classified status as far as the offices of the government that keep records of that are concerned, then he's really an idiot and asked for everything that happened.


This is a picture-perfect recitation of the Biden FBI's view of the matter. It's a tempest in a teapot, ginned up for purely political purposes. But this is a perfect recitation of the party line.

Let's restate it in other terms: "A procedure wasn't followed!"

Big deal. Classification exists so that the executive (that's POTUS) can control information, not the other way around. The bureaucrats are just the gears-and-levers by which this machine operates, but it operates on behalf of POTUS. Until Jan 2020, that was Donald Trump, like it or not. Trump didn't get neuralyzed by a Men-in-Black neuralyzer when he left office so, guess what, all that "Top Secret Classified Info!!1!111" is still in his head. So the idea that classification is some kind of impenetrable barrier or wall that contains some kind of lake of information that "cannot leak" is downright silly. If there were some forms/procedures that the bureaucrats needed him to perform, that's just checkbox BS... even after leaving office. POTUS is not like any other inferior Federal official... he is in a class entirely his own. That's the whole point of having an executive: to place all the discretionary powers of the presidency into a _single_ individual, eliminating all of the bureaucratic and deliberative delays that necessarily come with a legislative body or a headless bureaucracy.

This is equally true of Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc. Every ex-President has had absolutely unrestricted access to _all_ classified info in the Executive. POTUS doesn't need to be read-in to a program... he's automatically read-in to all programs, because he's the root of classification authority. The witch-hunters are trying to treat Trump in the same category as a rogue ex-Department of Education head, or something, that has run off with "boxes of classified government documents". It's absurd, and they know it. This kind of BS has never before been stunted on an ex-POTUS, not because they don't have access to TS/SCI info (they all do, duh), but because it's what they've calculated is their best chance to get their licks in on Trump.

Purely political theater and nonsense. Pop up a bag of popcorn... this show's about to get good...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The President has the unilateral authority to declassify documents. Period. If you want to know whether the documents at Mar-a-lago were declassified, you just have to ask him.


Why should anyone assume he'd tell the truth?




> For somebody to be convicted of a crime, you need to prove they are guilty. The person being investigated does not need to prove they are innocent.


If the issue of whether Trump declassified the documents he took ever came up in a criminal proceeding against him the government would attempt to prove it by circumstantial evidence, including other instances of his declassifying things in writing (e.g., the Crossfire Hurricane materials) and maybe even the fact that he _always_ did so.  They might also produce evidence of past declassification practices of Presidents (in order to show, for example, that no declassification had ever been accomplished without documentation).  He would then be cross-examined and asked why he failed to document his decision as to the materials he took and why he never notified the National Archives or anyone else in the government who would need to know about the declassification.  Ultimately, it would likely boil down to a credibility issue -- would a jury believe Trump's after-the-fact claim?  

Invisible Man hit the nail on the head.  If Trump has no written evidence of his declassification claim, he''s an idiot.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The law as it stands does not specify a goddamn thing related to process


The PRA does.

----------


## Occam's Banana

https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/s...43471074623490

----------


## TheTexan

> The PRA does.


That does not specify a process, it just says "things should be documented".

Additionally, there are no criminal charges associated with violating that provision, which makes it more of a recommendation than a law.

----------


## TheTexan

Kash Patel has also said previously that he was standing next to Trump when he said that these documents are declassified.

I suppose we're just to assume that he is lying too?

----------


## TheTexan

> This is a picture-perfect recitation of the Biden FBI's view of the matter. It's a tempest in a teapot, ginned up for purely political purposes. But this is a perfect recitation of the party line.
> 
> Let's restate it in other terms: "A procedure wasn't followed!"


Yes, and if the FBI cared even the slightest about retaining any kind of credibility, they would be behaving in this matter as transparently as possible.

But they are doing just the opposite, being as opaque as possible.  Which of course, is not in the least bit surprising.

----------


## Snowball

> https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/s...43471074623490


I wouldn't be surprised if Trump was obtaining these files for parties in his true network. For example:

Trump Condemns His Own Supporters Days After Pardoning ‘The King Of Medicare Fraud’ & Releasing Traitor From Parole
https://www.newswars.com/trump-conde...r-from-parole/

"Just days ago, Trump pardoned a host of fraudsters who donated to the Aleph Institute — an organization that was started by the Orthodox Jewish Chabad-Lubavitch movement which counts the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a member.

Philip Esformes acquired a $1.6 million Ferrari and a $360,000 Swiss watch and traveled around the United States on a private jet, a spending spree fueled by the spoils from what federal prosecutors called one of the largest Medicare fraud cases in history
Trump also pardoned Jared Kushner’s criminal father, Charles Kushner, as well as “career con-man” Mark A. Shapiro and his partner Irving Stitsky, who stole millions of dollars from hundreds of investors by selling worthless interests in bogus real estate investment offerings.

In November,
the Trump administration quietly ended traitor Jonathan Pollard’s parole to allow him to leave the country and “make aliyah” in Israel.

Pollard, a Jewish-American intelligence analyst who stole US military secrets and sold them to Israel, received a hero’s welcome last Wednesday by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after being flown out of the US on billionaire GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson’s personal private plane.

Another criminal Trump pardoned early in his term was Sholom Rubashkin, a money laundering fraudster who ran a Kosher slaughterhouse and meatpacking operation in Iowa employing hundreds of illegal aliens — including illegal alien children — that resembled a house of horrors.

Trump invited Rubashkin to a White House Hanukkah party last month.

Trump pardons Israeli officer who enlisted spy Pollard
https://abcnews.go.com/International...llard-75365099

----------


## ClaytonB

> Yes, and if the FBI cared even the slightest about retaining any kind of credibility, they would be behaving in this matter as transparently as possible.
> 
> But they are doing just the opposite, being as opaque as possible.  Which of course, is not in the least bit surprising.


Precisely. And lest anyone accuse me of being a Trumper, I have no pre-commitment to the idea that Trump is clean. It's possible that Trump is dirty. But even if that were true, it is almost certain that whatever the FBI has cooked up for the Mar-a-Lago raid has absolutely zero to do with it. The Mar-a-Lago raid is transparently political and has nothing to do with any sort of inquiry into facts or truth.

----------


## ClaytonB



----------


## Sonny Tufts

> That does not specify a process, it just says "things should be documented".
> 
> Additionally, there are no criminal charges associated with violating that provision, which makes it more of a recommendation than a law.


It's more than a recommendation.  It says the President SHALL take all steps as may be necessary to assure that his decisions are adequately documented.

While it's true that the Act doesn't provide for a penalty for its violation (and I don't know if there's some other statute that does), his failure to abide by the Act makes his after-the-fact claim that he really did declassify the stuff he took far less credible, especially if that was the only instance in which he ever declassified something without documenting it (which I would bet was the case).

As I said earlier, if you look at all the other things involving the President that are routinely documented, it's beyond belief that he declassified the stuff he took without putting it in writing. 




> Kash Patel has also said previously that he was standing next to Trump when he said that these documents are declassified.
> 
> I suppose we're just to assume that he is lying too?


Presidential aides have lied for their boss many times before.  I sometimes wonder if it's a job requirement.

Here's a story to recall.  While it's from NBC News, which to many on this site makes it presumptively false, many other outlets have reported the same thing (including Fox News):




> In October 2020, Trump tweeted, “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”
> 
> When news organizations sought to obtain the supposedly declassified documents, they were told they were still under wraps. Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows said in a sworn court filing in the case, “The president indicated to me that his statements on Twitter were not self-executing declassification orders and do not require the declassification or release of any particular documents.”  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...ar-w-rcna42311

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> But they are doing just the opposite, being as opaque as possible.  Which of course, is not in the least bit surprising.


When you're conducting a criminal investigation it's not surprising at all.

----------


## TheTexan

> It's more than a recommendation.  It says the President SHALL take all steps as may be necessary to assure that his decisions are adequately documented.
> 
> While it's true that the Act doesn't provide for a penalty for its violation (and I don't know if there's some other statute that does), his failure to abide by the Act makes his after-the-fact claim that he really did declassify the stuff he took far less credible, especially if that was the only instance in which he ever declassified something without documenting it (which I would bet was the case).


Regardless, by law, there is not a specified procedure for either declassifying documents, or for even documenting it under the PRA.

It is entirely reasonable to believe that his order to declassify something fell through the procedural cracks.  Do you disagree with that statement?

----------


## TheTexan

> When you're conducting a criminal investigation it's not surprising at all.


2 realities.

You live in a reality where the FBI act with integrity and honor.

We live in a reality where the FBI has repeatedly earned our distrust.

From your side, the redactions are wholly necessary and justified.

From our side of reality, the redactions are almost certainly to cover up the FBI's misdeeds versus any kind of legitimate reason.

And when the truth does come out - as it always does - in 1 year, 5 years, or 50 years -

Our side of reality, will be proven right, *again*.  (as we have been, again, and again, and again, and again)

And your side of reality, will just carry on pretending like this never even happened.

----------


## fcreature

> 2 realities.
> 
> You live in a reality where the FBI act with integrity and honor.
> 
> We live in a reality where the FBI has repeatedly earned our distrust.
> 
> From your side, the redactions are wholly necessary and justified.
> 
> From our side of reality, the redactions are almost certainly to cover up the FBI's misdeeds versus any kind of legitimate reason.
> ...


Well put.

----------


## ClaytonB

> 2 realities.
> 
> You live in a reality where the FBI act with integrity and honor.
> 
> We live in a reality where the FBI has repeatedly earned our distrust.
> 
> From your side, the redactions are wholly necessary and justified.
> 
> From our side of reality, the redactions are almost certainly to cover up the FBI's misdeeds versus any kind of legitimate reason.
> ...

----------


## dannno

> Prove that I believe all of the things on your list.


I said potentially 12. How did you score? Afraid to admit it?




> But I do believe #9, and the burden's not on me to prove it's true. I don't know whether you believe the election was stolen or, if you do, whether it's because you swallowed Trump's claims that it was.  But the undeniable fact is that Trump and his lemmings filed a boatload of lawsuits seeking to change the results and failed miserably. In addition, some of his lemmings sent phony slates of electors to the National Archives; that didn't work either.  
> 
> So you think you can demonstrably prove that the claim that the election was fair because there was no major fraud is BS?  Well why didn't Trump hire you?
> 
> The bottom line is that after all of the legal procedures for determining the outcome of the election concluded, Biden was declared the winner, despite all of the lawsuits and despite Trump's moronic attempt to have Pence do something in connection with the counting of the electoral votes that he had no authority to do.


#9 says that you believe the election was fair because of the court cases. You could believe the election was fair and still find shortcomings in the argument that it was because of the court cases. 

All of the court cases were dropped due to either lack of standing, or because the # of votes was not sufficient to overturn the election. In the same breathe, the left will say Trump filed over 60 lawsuits. It was actually closer to 10 that the Trump team filed, the others were filed by other groups or individuals. However, the irony is that if you had 4 cases that could overturn the election in a particular state that all had merit, they could each be turned down individually either for standing or for lack of votes in the individual suit. 

You seem to be under the assumption that the cases were lost in court due to their merit. Not a single court case of the 60 was judged on its merit. Not a single case went to discovery.

----------


## TheTexan

> All of the court cases were dropped due to either lack of standing, or because the # of votes was not sufficient to overturn the election. In the same breathe, the left will say Trump filed over 60 lawsuits. It was actually closer to 10 that the Trump team filed, the others were filed by other groups or individuals. However, the irony is that if you had 4 cases that could overturn the election in a particular state that all had merit, they could each be turned down individually either for standing or for lack of votes in the individual suit.


If the cases were not dismissed for standing, or for laches, the remaining cases usually followed a similar pattern:

1) Affidavits were submitted that prove (fairly conclusively, in some cases) that election laws x, y, and z were broken
2) The judge states in the ruling that "affidavits are not evidence"
3) The judge makes a ruling say that "there is no evidence that laws x, y, z were broken" and dismisses the case

It was sometimes not clear what happened in step #2.  In some of the court cases, the judge was obviously mega biased and simply did not even allow sworn testimony at all (because it would endanger "demuhcracy").  But in somes it wasn't clear if the Trump team had just failed to do their job to get witnesses lined up for sworn testimony.  I suspect in most cases the Trump legal team was just railroaded and couldnt bring witnesses if they wanted to, but I also wouldn't put anything past the incompetency of Giuliani.

(Liberals of course explain this away as "noone wanted to lie under oath" which is of course ridiculous for reasons I don't need to explain to you)

One of my favorite reasons that judges sometimes listed as a primary reason for dismissal, is that they could not "in good conscious entertain this attempt to overthrow a democratic election".

It's like, yes judge, the whole point of taking this to court, was to overturn the election.  That's kind of the point!!!

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> It is entirely reasonable to believe that his order to declassify something fell through the procedural cracks.  Do you disagree with that statement?


I'd say it's certainly a possibility, but I haven't seen anything to make such a belief reasonable.

Patel has said that the White House counsel failed to generate the paperwork to change the classification markings.  If that's true then it should be easy to show that counsel was notified to do so and to have somebody in the counsel's office come forward and say something like "Yes, here's the email from Mr. Patel telling us that the President had declassified some material but in the rush to get everything done before the new administration arrived, we just dropped the ball."  Wonder why nobody in the counsel's office has come forward to corroborate Patel?

In addition, unless counsel was given an inventory of the documents that were allegedly declassified how could it have possibly generated the paperwork?  Where's the inventory?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I said potentially 12. How did you score? Afraid to admit it?


I didn't take the test.  I have too little interest in or knowledge of most of the items on the list to form an opinion about them.




> #9 says that you believe the election was fair because of the court cases.


No, I believe the election was fair because I've seen no evidence that any irregularities changed the outcome.  Even Trump's AG Barr came to that conclusion.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> No, I believe the election was fair because I've seen no evidence that any irregularities changed the outcome.  Even Trump's AG Barr came to that conclusion.


Whoa...apples and bowling balls there...just because the outcome did not significantly change, does not mean that the election was "fair", honest and correct.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If the cases were not dismissed for standing, or for laches, the remaining cases usually followed a similar pattern:
> 
> 1) Affidavits were submitted that prove (fairly conclusively, in some cases) that election laws x, y, and z were broken


But did any of these affidavits prove that violation of the election laws caused a different result?




> The judge states in the ruling that "affidavits are not evidence"


They really aren't.  No judge is going to rule for a Plaintiff if all he's done is present affidavits (excluding a situation where the defendant doesn't answer the suit).  You can't cross examine an affidavit.




> In some of the court cases, the judge was obviously mega biased and simply did not even allow sworn testimony at all (because it would endanger "demuhcracy")


I'd like to see the orders in these cases to see exactly what the jusge's reasoning was.

You forgot to mention the incompetency of Sidney "Release the Kraken!" Powell.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Whoa...apples and bowling balls there...just because the outcome did not significantly change, does not mean that the election was "fair", honest and correct.


If you're sayng that any irregularity makes an election unfair then no election is ever fair. Fairness is a matter of degree.  If a candidate would have lost no matter what, why would the election be unfair?

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

> If you're sayng that any irregularity makes an election unfair then no election is ever fair. Fairness is a matter of degree.  If a candidate would have lost no matter what, why would the election be unfair?


Do you actually believe that more people turned out and voted for Biden than any other US election in history?

----------


## dannno

> But did any of these affidavits prove that violation of the election laws caused a different result?


None of them, individually, but combined, yes. 

We already discussed this problem with the system.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> ...
> No, I believe the election was fair because I've seen no evidence that any irregularities changed the outcome.  Even Trump's AG Barr came to that conclusion.


No, that is not the case at all. In the thread about Dan Crenshaw, there is a 2 hour podcast with Bill Barr, and his conclusion is that there was plenty wrong with the election. His position is that it is almost exclusively an issue for states to deal with, not his problem. And his position on bringing any charges against anyone is that he will not do it until there is blatant guilt easily proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. He saw plenty of likely and probable crime, but his position is that he will not bring charges.




> Whoa...apples and bowling balls there...just because the outcome did not significantly change, does not mean that the election was "fair", honest and correct.


The outcome probably was changed. Bill Barr does blame it on Trump himself. Barr says that Trump was repeatedly told to prepare a massive legal effort and teams in every state to battle election rule changes and questionable events during the election. He says Trump didn’t want to spend any money on it, because he was confident of an easy victory.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> 2 realities.
> 
> You live in a reality where the FBI act with integrity and honor.
> 
> We live in a reality where the FBI has repeatedly earned our distrust.
> 
> From your side, the redactions are wholly necessary and justified.
> 
> From our side of reality, the redactions are almost certainly to cover up the FBI's misdeeds versus any kind of legitimate reason.
> ...


They really don't care if their version of “reality” is true. Pushing the agenda and winning at any cost trumps any other concerns. BAMN.

----------


## dannno

> The outcome probably was changed. Bill Barr does blame it on Trump himself. Barr says that Trump was repeatedly told to prepare a massive legal effort and teams in every state to battle election rule changes and questionable events during the election. He says Trump didn’t want to spend any money on it, because he was confident of an easy victory.


Great, another excuse for Sonny, the Democrats cheated Trump out of the election, but he didn't prepare an adequate legal team to deal with the fraud, so it's really Trump's fault.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Great, another excuse for Sonny, the Democrats cheated Trump out of the election, but he didn't prepare an adequate legal team to deal with the fraud, so it's really Trump's fault.


Kind of ironic coming from an AG. “That home invasion robbery was your fault, because you weren’t waiting at the door with a shotgun and a legal team.”

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> there is a 2 hour podcast with Bill Barr, and his conclusion is that there was plenty wrong with the election. His position is that it is almost exclusively an issue for states to deal with, not his problem. And his position on bringing any charges against anyone is that he will not do it until there is blatant guilt easily proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. He saw plenty of likely and probable crime, but his position is that he will not bring charges.


The issue isn't about bringing criminal charges; it's whether there were irregularities that were so severe that the election should be overturned.

Here's Barr calling Trump's claims BS:

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The issue isn't about bringing criminal charges; it's whether there were irregularities that were so severe that the election should be overturned.
> 
> Here's Barr calling Trump's claims BS:


I can’t imagine Barr would spin things differently testifying under oath than he would on an informal podcast.  

Barr was against *publicly making claims that the election was stolen*. His statement there was ambiguous, did Barr mean election fraud claims were BS, or Trump making the claims publicly as President was BS? In longer format, Barr goes into detail about how he doesn't like the way that Trump operates, shooting from the hip and creating divisive drama. He doesn't want a President undermining the integrity of the election process, even if it is flawed, prone to fraud, or manipulated.

Barr was there to essentially do nothing, and make Trump sure didn’t do anything outrageous. Public claims of election stealing were too much for Barr, and he knew it was over anyway.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

The issues of classification and declassification may be beside the point.  None of the statutes cited in the application for the search warrant deals specifically with classified information.

18 USC 793 deals with national defense information, regardless of whether it’s classified.

18 USC 1519 and 2071 deal with records in general without regard to their classification.

So in any prosecution for a violation of any of these statutes the government wouldn't need to prove that any of the documents were classified, although it would doubtless attempt to do so..

----------


## TheTexan

> I'd say it's certainly a possibility, but I haven't seen anything to make such a belief reasonable.
> 
> Patel has said that the White House counsel failed to generate the paperwork to change the classification markings.  If that's true then it should be easy to show that counsel was notified to do so and to have somebody in the counsel's office come forward and say something like "Yes, here's the email from Mr. Patel telling us that the President had declassified some material but in the rush to get everything done before the new administration arrived, we just dropped the ball."  Wonder why nobody in the counsel's office has come forward to corroborate Patel?
> 
> In addition, unless counsel was given an inventory of the documents that were allegedly declassified how could it have possibly generated the paperwork?  Where's the inventory?


What if it fell through the cracks before any paperwork was generated?

Trump - get these declassified ASAP.
Patel - yes sir.
Patel - hey jill, i've put the documents here on your desk that we talked about that need to be declassified.  Please make sure these get declassified in today's 2pm batch
Jill - sure thing
Jill - does nails
Jill - talks on phone
1 week goes by
Bob - hey Jill these documents are on your desk for a week can we take them back to storage
Jill - ya sure whatever

Sonny, the fact that you can't even envision a scenario like that happening, means one of two things:

1) you've got TDS and in a context outside of Trump you would have answered my question differently, or
2) you're just a mega authoritarian who believes the government is perfect and cannot make mistakes

Which one is it?

----------


## TheTexan

> If you're sayng that any irregularity makes an election unfair then no election is ever fair. Fairness is a matter of degree.  If a candidate would have lost no matter what, why would the election be unfair?


What happened at the TCF center in Detroit is not just an "irregularity" it was a massive amount of organized intentional breaking of election laws that was observed to always be in one party's favor.

There were something like 100 witnesses that told the same story.  Ballots were being "remediated" in favor of Biden.  When challengers brought forth an official challenge, they were ignored.  When challengers went to the supervisor to alert them of this, they were ignored.  

Ballot challenges against Biden were being ignored as a matter of policy.

In Detroit election law, *every* challenge must be recorded.  The only exception is if the challenger was being willfully obstructive (which they generally were not being accused of).  Otherwise the challenges must be recorded, and throughout the entire building, they weren't.

We will never know how many ballots were challenged.  The whole point of the challengers is to bring forth challenges.  And the whole point of the challengers is to have a transparent fair election.

Some of the counters didn't even have challengers at all - they had been thrown out for breaking arbitrarily enforced covid distance rules.

Regardless of whatever "justifiable" reasons the court cases were dismissed, there is absolutely nothing "justifiable" about the above happening.

And there has been 0 recourse, 0 audits, 0 acknowledgements.

Even if it is Trump's legal team's fault, does that make this situation any better?  Does it make people any less angry?

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

> Do you actually believe that more people turned out and voted for Biden than any other US election in history?


 @Sonny Tufts

----------


## TheTexan

> But did any of these affidavits prove that violation of the election laws caused a different result?


The testimonies taken together did suggest that it was indeed very possible that the shenanigans could have changed the result.

At the very minimum, audits were warranted, to be able to prove it.

0 audits.

----------


## TheTexan

In Olympic sports when a player is caught massively cheating, do they:
1) disqualify him, or
2) let him keep playing and expect the other players to prove that they would have won without the cheating

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> What if it fell through the cracks before any paperwork was generated?
> 
> Trump - get these declassified ASAP.
> Patel - yes sir.
> Patel - hey jill, i've put the documents here on your desk that we talked about that need to be declassified.  Please make sure these get declassified in today's 2pm batch
> Jill - sure thing
> Jill - does nails
> Jill - talks on phone
> 1 week goes by
> ...


Neither.  

Did Patel or anyone else ever follow up to see if counsel had generated a written declassification and that Trump signed it?

Who the hell is Jill?  Some steno that Patel trusted with stuff that at one time had been classified WAY above her grade and whose word should have been taken (by Bob) that material THAT WAS STILL MARKED AS CLASSIFIED could just be taken to some storeroom?

If something even remotely like this happened don't you think Patel or some other Trump sycophant would have figured it out by now and publicized the fact?

What a dumb example.  I expected a better response from you.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> suggest...very possible..could have...


Nice qualifiers.

Arizona had an audit in Maricopa County.  It found that Biden got 99 more votes than originally reported and Trump got 261 fewer. Oops...never mind.

----------


## TheTexan

> Neither.  
> 
> Did Patel or anyone else ever follow up to see if counsel had generated a written declassification and that Trump signed it?
> 
> Who the hell is Jill?  Some steno that Patel trusted with stuff that at one time had been classified WAY above her grade and whose word should have been taken (by Bob) that material THAT WAS STILL MARKED AS CLASSIFIED could just be taken to some storeroom?
> 
> If something even remotely like this happened don't you think Patel or some other Trump sycophant would have figured it out by now and publicized the fact?
> 
> What a dumb example.  I expected a better response from you.


LOL thank you for proving my point.

I provided a reasonable example of how it could happen and you constructed various strawmen assumptions to try to invalidate it.

Definitely TDS as if anyone ever had any doubt.

----------


## TheTexan

> Nice qualifiers.


You expect people to prove, conclusively, that they would have won the election, without an audit?

LOL




> Arizona had an audit in Maricopa County. It found that Biden got 99 more votes than originally reported and Trump got 261 fewer. Oops...never mind.


1 audit, in 1 county, months after the fact?  is that all you got.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> What happened at the TCF center in Detroit is not just an "irregularity" it was a massive amount of organized intentional breaking of election laws that was observed to always be in one party's favor.


Barr didn't think so.




> William Barr, President Donald Trump's former attorney general, told the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot that he advised Trump there was no evidence of election fraud in Detroit.
> 
> During pre-recorded testimony aired Monday, Barr said that after the 2020 election, Trump "didn't seem to be listening" to him and members of his Cabinet who repeatedly told him there was no validity to his claims that the election had been stolen from him, including in Detroit.
> 
> Unproven claims of fraud in Detroit, a Democratic stronghold, have underpinned some Republicans' push to overturn Joe Biden's 154,000-vote victory over Trump in Michigan in the 2020 presidential election.
> 
> On Dec. 1, 2020, Barr told the Associated Press there was no evidence of election fraud. Later that day, he was summoned to the White House for a meeting with Trump.
> 
> "The president was as mad as I've ever seen him," Barr testified to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
> ...





> Even if it is Trump's legal team's fault


Funny you should mention that.




> [Sidney] Powell filed a lawsuit against Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer and other state officials on November 25, alleging a variety of violations of the election code and asking the court to decertify the state's election results or certify them for Trump. In the lawsuit, Powell submitted a witness's declaration that Joe Biden had "received more than 100% of the votes" in Edison County; however, there is no Edison County in Michigan or any other U.S. state. There is an Edison Township in Minnesota, leading to speculation that the information was again taken from a list of Minnesota precincts.
> 
> U.S. district judge Linda V. Parker denied the requested relief on December 7, stating that the plaintiffs had only offered "theories, conjecture, and speculation" of potential vote switching. The judge also declared that the "ship has sailed" for most of the relief requested by the plaintiffs, while the rest "is beyond the power of any court". Furthermore, Parker wrote that the relief requested would "greatly harm the public interest" and felt that the plaintiffs' motive for filing the case was not to win, but rather to shake "people's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government". Powell has filed an appeal of the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied a motion for expedited review of the case.  The city of Detroit has called for sanctions against the plaintiffs in the case as well as their counsel, requesting that Powell and the other attorneys be disbarred for "trying to use this court's processes to validate their conspiracy theories". Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel filed a similar motion on January 28, 2021, accusing Powell and three Michigan lawyers of violating their oaths by attempting to overturn Biden's victory. On February 1, 2021, Nessel, along with Michigan governor Whitmer and Michigan secretary of state Jocelyn Benson, filed complaints with the State Bar of Texas seeking Powell's disbarment. 
> 
> During a July 2021 hearing to consider sanctions against Powell and other attorneys for their activities in Michigan, Parker discussed the hundreds of pages of allegations by others that the attorneys had submitted to courts, which included an individual claiming to have witnessed poll workers changing votes from Trump to Biden. None of the attorneys responded when Parker asked if they had spoken to the witness to vet their allegation.
> 
> On August 25, 2021, Judge Parker ruled that Powell, L. Lin Wood, and seven other pro-Trump lawyers, had filed the suit "in bad faith and for an improper purpose"; that their litigation was a "a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process"; and that they had filed a baseless, frivolous lawsuit in order to undermine public confidence in the democratic process. The court ordered that they pay attorney's fees to the City of Detroit and State of Michigan to reimburse them for the costs of defending against the suit, and referred them to their respective state bars for investigation into ethical violations, which could lead to disbarment. 
> 
> On November 4, 2021, a closed-door investigatory hearing was held by the State Bar of Texas to begin the process of determining possible sanctions or disbarment for Powell.  On December 2, 2021, Judge Parker ordered Powell, Wood and the other "Kraken" attorneys to pay $175,250 to the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Powell#Michigan

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I provided a reasonable example of how it could happen


There is more reason at a Flat Earth Society meeting than in your example.

----------


## TheTexan

> Barr didn't think so.


There's no reason to believe that Barr did any investigation whatsoever.  As such, his opinion isn't any more valid than yours or mine.  You and I probably know more about the 2020 election than he does.

If you want to hand-wave away my description of the top-to-bottom corruption of the TCF Center, as obvious lies and right-wing propaganda, feel free to do so as I am long beyond caring on this issue.

You live in a nice bubble where certain things you know to be true are true, and I certainly wouldn't want to upset that delicate balance.  Sincerely.  I am happy and envious for you, that you can live so peacefully with so many delusions.

----------


## TheTexan

> There is more reason at a Flat Earth Society meeting than in your example.


And there is more sanity in the average patient at Bellevue than there is in your TDS brain

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> @Sonny Tufts


I think you mean to ask if I believe Biden got more popular votes than any other President in history.  That's what the certified election results indicate, and I see no reason to disbelieve them.  Trump got more votes than any other President in history.  Should I disbelieve his totals?

----------


## ClaytonB



----------


## fcreature

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ical-bias-und/

https://justthenews.com/government/f...tedly-escorted




> Whistleblowers alleged that Thibault concealed the partisan nature of evidence from FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland to secure their approval to open an investigation into former President Donald Trump. That investigation culminated in the FBI’s raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate earlier this month.
> 
> The public release of the affidavit that accompanied the search warrant revealed the warrant application relied heavily on information from news articles, including a CBS Miami piece titled “Moving Trucks Spotted At Mar-a-Lago” and a Breitbart News article in which former Trump adviser Kash Patel discussed the classified status of documents the bureau previously removed from the estate on behalf of the National Archives.


LOL when will the FBI / DOJ authoritarian shills in this thread just give up?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ical-bias-und/
> 
> https://justthenews.com/government/f...tedly-escorted
> 
> 
> 
> LOL when will the FBI / DOJ authoritarian shills in this thread just give up?


Since when have "news" articles ever been valid evidence in the courts?

It's the good old Pelosi wrap-up smear...

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> LOL when will the FBI / DOJ authoritarian shills in this thread just give up?


The article at the justthenews link says, "Whistleblowers alleged that Thibault concealed the partisan nature of evidence from FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland to secure their approval to open an investigation into former President Donald Trump in 2020 *unrelated to the raid*, according to information made public by Sen. Charles Grassley."

Where did the sentence "That investigation culminated in the FBI’s raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate earlier this month." come from?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Interesting information in the DOJ’s response to Trump’s motion for a Special Master.  It seems the grand jury subpoena served on Trump’s representative in May requested not just classified documents, but all documents bearing classification markings.  In June, the representative made a sworn certification to the DOJ that to the best of his knowledge a diligent search had been made and all documents responsive to the subpoena had been given to the DOJ and that no copy of any responsive document had been retained.  

But there were documents at Mar-a-Lago that were responsive to the subpoena that weren’t produced.  That is apparently what precipitated the search warrant.

It doesn’t matter whether the documents had been declassified; if they bore classification markings they should have been turned over. But they weren’t.

According to the DOJ filing, Trump’s so-called “diligent search” somehow failed to discover and turn over more than 100 documents with classification markings that the FBI discovered in a matter of hours, over twice the number of documents with classification markings that Trump’s people had weeks to discover and deliver.

The response can be read here: https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/30/polit...ter/index.html

----------


## donnay

*CONFIRMED: As Gateway Pundit Reported — FBI Doctored Mar-a-Lago Photo, Added Their Own Docs that DON’T MATCH INVENTORY REPORTS*

By Jim Hoft
Published September 3, 2022 at 6:35pm



The FBI created a fake crime scene at Mar-a-Lago by adding their own documents to the scene and doctoring the photo they released in their report and to the press. 

As The Gateway Pundit reported earlier — This is against the law.

The DOJ responded in a lawsuit this week to President Trump’s request to a Florida Court to review the FBI raid of his iconic property Mar-a-Lago.

In the DOJ’s response, the DOJ included a document they claim was taken at Mar-a-Lago during their raid.

The photo was all over the news on Wednesday, August 31, the day after it was provided to the court.

The Independent made fun of the Time Magazine cover on the right side of the photo that the DOJ apparently wanted to include in the photo so that they could show that President Trump is so vain.   There was no need for this Time Magazine piece in the picture.

The Daily Mail said “Trump KEPT framed Time cover of ‘enemies’ knocking at his window among the collection of classified files – including documents marked ‘Top Secret’ and those based on ‘human intelligence’ – sprawled across Mar-a-Lago”.

This was all a lie.  The FBI created the crime scene, inserted their own documents, and then photoshopped the document.  What a disgrace.  
1. We know that the FBI wanted to make this look like a crime scene.
We know this because at the bottom of the photo provided to the court there is the number 2A, indicating that this was a crime scene photo as well as a type of tape measure across the bottom of the photo.  The corrupt FBI threw the photos on the floor themselves.  They staged this.

We know this because the containers were right next door.  The documents would have been placed on a table had the FBI wanted to take a picture of the documents.  Showing them as scattered across the floor is for show to indicate they were found this way, a lie we explain below.  Also, the cabinets are right next to the documents, which is likely where they were stored.  They weren’t stored on the floor.



2. The FBI inserted documents into the photo. 
The cover sheets in the above photo that were red, yellow, and brown were inserted by the FBI.  They are the FBI’s cover sheets.  We know this for various reasons.  The Trump White House did not need these cover sheets in the documents they held because they had their own cover sheets.

If you look closely at the photo above, the document right above the 2A is folded back.  The papers are stapled together as they should be.  If you look at that batch you see there already was a cover sheet on that document.  It says “Please store in…”.  That is the real cover sheet.

The red, yellow, and brown cover sheets were inserted.  If you look closely at the yellow cover sheets, they are paper clipped to the documents.  The documents would have been stapled.  They are paperclipped because they were inserted by the FBI.

Also, the front cover sheet in brown, showing SCI, says the following wording:

Handling, storage, reproduction, and distribution of the attached document must be in accordance with the applicable executive orders statutes and agency implementing regulations.

*Continued...*

----------


## Matt Collins



----------


## Brian4Liberty

> 


My takeaway from that: The President has the constitutional authority to classify or declassify anything he wants. But everyone else in government can ignore him, and thus he really doesn't have any authority. That is the case they are making.

Trump: I want steak for dinner!

Waiter: Yes, sir!

DOJ: Trump did not get steak for dinner that night. Maybe the waiter didn't take his order to the kitchen, maybe the cook didn't want to cook it. Maybe they ran out of steak. Maybe they cooked the steak, but a dog grabbed it and ran away. Regardless, there was no steak that night, thus Trump did not really, truly, and legally order steak.

----------


## ClaytonB

> 


This video is very instructive. Timestamp @3:35 contains the crux of their bull$#@! argument -- they are trying to conflate POTUS, who is the embodiment and personification of the Executive branch, with an "original classifier", which is just a Federal office designated by POTUS as a classifying authority. The key phrase is "This includes the President". And that's the constitutional battle that has to be fought here. Executive privilege inheres in the _individual_, not the office. It is true that executive privilege does not extend beyond the term of the presidency, but all of the information pertaining to POTUS's activities, for the duration of their presidency, is privileged executive information and does not stop being privileged executive information after the term of the presidency.

For the blockheaded Wokists out there, the simple litmus test is to ask yourself whether (a) the information in question is something that POTUS had legitimate access to during their presidency, and (b) POTUS could be "made to forget" this information upon leaving office. In the case of (a), POTUS has automatic and unrestricted access to all information in the Executive; and in the case of (b) if you want to assert that some particular document "could not be declassified upon leaving office", you must explain how the information is to be extracted from POTUS's brain since he can simply read the document one minute before leaving office and write down what he read one minute after leaving office.

This idea of trying to make POTUS into "just another Federal employee" who happens to be in charge of all the Federal employees in the Executive *is* the core constitutional argument here. POTUS is the check-and-balance of the Executive, imbued in a single, solitary individual. And that is by design. The Judiciary is 9 people, the Legislative 535 and the Executive is 1. This is a blatant attempt to create some kind of "zombie POTUS" that is permanently attached to the puppet-strings of the very bureaucracy which he is supposed to be the executive of. Pure insanity.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> This video is very instructive. Timestamp @3:35 contains the crux of their bull$#@! argument -- they are trying to conflate POTUS, who is the embodiment and personification of the Executive branch, with an "original classifier", which is just a Federal office designated by POTUS as a classifying authority. The key phrase is "This includes the President". And that's the constitutional battle that has to be fought here. Executive privilege inheres in the _individual_, not the office. It is true that executive privilege does not extend beyond the term of the presidency, but all of the information pertaining to POTUS's activities, for the duration of their presidency, is privileged executive information and does not stop being privileged executive information after the term of the presidency.
> 
> For the blockheaded Wokists out there, the simple litmus test is to ask yourself whether (a) the information in question is something that POTUS had legitimate access to during their presidency, and (b) POTUS could be "made to forget" this information upon leaving office. In the case of (a), POTUS has automatic and unrestricted access to all information in the Executive; and in the case of (b) if you want to assert that some particular document "could not be declassified upon leaving office", you must explain how the information is to be extracted from POTUS's brain since he can simply read the document one minute before leaving office and write down what he read one minute after leaving office.
> 
> This idea of trying to make POTUS into "just another Federal employee" who happens to be in charge of all the Federal employees in the Executive *is* the core constitutional argument here. POTUS is the check-and-balance of the Executive, imbued in a single, solitary individual. And that is by design. The Judiciary is 9 people, the Legislative 535 and the Executive is 1. This is a blatant attempt to create some kind of "zombie POTUS" that is permanently attached to the puppet-strings of the very bureaucracy which he is supposed to be the executive of. Pure insanity.


But Obama signed an Executive Order that was never reversed by Trump, and apparently Executive Orders (and obscure bureaucratic policies and procedures) over-ride the Constitution!

----------


## GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

It doesn't matter what somebody does it only matters who is complaining about what they did.

----------


## ClaytonB

> But Obama signed an Executive Order that was never reversed by Trump, and apparently Executive Orders (and obscure bureaucratic policies and procedures) over-ride the Constitution!


Exactly... by not updating Obama's EO, Trump nullified his own de-classification decision....

----------


## Sonny Tufts

Forget classification for a moment.

The legal owner of the documents before and after Trump's term ended was the United States Government, not Trump.  He had no legal right to possess them after he left office.  If he wants to claim executive privilege as to some of them, there's a procedure under the Presidential Records Act for him to do so, but only after the Archivist notifies him that the Archivist intends to make the material public.

Despite repeated requests by the Archives for documents Trump dragged his heels for over a year, finally turning over 15 boxes in January.  

A subpoena was later served on Trump's custodian of records asking for all documents with classification markings (whether they had been declassified was immaterial). *This subpoena was not complied with*, despite a sworn certification from a Trump lawyer claiming that all such documents has been returned after a "diligent search".

Taking documents that didn't belong to him, stalling their return to the Archives, and disobeying a subpoena to turn them over.  And the Trump apologists see nothing wrong with this scenario. 

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

----------


## TheTexan

> Forget classification for a moment.
> 
> The legal owner of the documents before and after Trump's term ended was the United States Government, not Trump.  He had no legal right to possess them after he left office.  If he wants to claim executive privilege as to some of them, there's a procedure under the Presidential Records Act for him to do so, but only after the Archivist notifies him that the Archivist intends to make the material public.
> 
> Despite repeated requests by the Archives for documents Trump dragged his heels for over a year, finally turning over 15 boxes in January.  
> 
> A subpoena was later served on Trump's custodian of records asking for all documents with classification markings (whether they had been declassified was immaterial). *This subpoena was not complied with*, despite a sworn certification from a Trump lawyer claiming that all such documents has been returned after a "diligent search".
> 
> Taking documents that didn't belong to him, stalling their return to the Archives, and disobeying a subpoena to turn them over.  And the Trump apologists see nothing wrong with this scenario. 
> ...


In other words you're saying, it's OK to raid his home so they could recover... documents... for the archive.

And of course you see no issue with this lol

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Forget classification for a moment.
> 
> The legal owner of the documents before and after Trump's term ended was the United States Government, not Trump.  He had no legal right to possess them after he left office.  If he wants to claim executive privilege as to some of them, there's a procedure under the Presidential Records Act for him to do so, but only after the Archivist notifies him that the Archivist intends to make the material public.
> 
> Despite repeated requests by the Archives for documents Trump dragged his heels for over a year, finally turning over 15 boxes in January.  
> 
> A subpoena was later served on Trump's custodian of records asking for all documents with classification markings (whether they had been declassified was immaterial). *This subpoena was not complied with*, despite a sworn certification from a Trump lawyer claiming that all such documents has been returned after a "diligent search".
> 
> Taking documents that didn't belong to him, stalling their return to the Archives, and disobeying a subpoena to turn them over.  And the Trump apologists see nothing wrong with this scenario. 
> ...


Yes, we see that alleged petty, bureaucratic, minor paperwork issues were used for a general warrant to go on a fishing expedition at the residence of a former president, who is also a competing candidate for the next Presidential election. It's pretty clear we see that.

Can you see the fact that such petty issues and much worse could have been used against other former presidents, and their cabinets (Hillary) and staff, yet that has never been done?

----------


## ClaytonB

> In other words you're saying, it's OK to raid his home so they could recover... documents... for the archive.
> 
> And of course you see no issue with this lol

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Yes, we see that alleged petty, bureaucratic, minor paperwork issues were used for a general warrant to go on a fishing expedition at the residence of a former president, who is also a competing candidate for the next Presidential election. It's pretty clear we see that.


Unless you've seen the documents that were retrieved in the execution of the warrant, you have no basis whatsoever to characterize it as a minor paperwork issue.  That is simply wishful thinking on your part because you've apparently bought into the myth that the DOJ is always wrong and Trump is beyond reproach.

If it was so petty, pray tell why did Trump resist turning over the docs for over a year?  And why did he fail to comply with the subpoena?  And why did the search warrant uncover twice as many docs with classified markings in a couple of hours than Trump returned to the FBI after its month-long so-called diligent search?

The Art of the Con, indeed.

----------


## acptulsa



----------


## ClaytonB

> Unless you've seen the documents that were retrieved in the execution of the warrant, you have no basis whatsoever to characterize it as a minor paperwork issue.  That is simply wishful thinking on your part because you've apparently bought into the myth that the DOJ is always wrong and Trump is beyond reproach.
> 
> If it was so petty, pray tell why did Trump resist turning over the docs for over a year?  And why did he fail to comply with the subpoena?  And why did the search warrant uncover twice as many docs with classified markings in a couple of hours than Trump returned to the FBI after its month-long so-called diligent search?
> 
> The Art of the Con, indeed.


Let's see...

- Contents of Hillary's hacked email server

- Full snapshot of Hunter Biden's laptop

- All Crossfire Hurricane investigation documents

Oh wait, wait, no it couldn't possibly be any of those things... must have been DUN DUN DUNNNNNN:

----------


## dannno

> *Unless you've seen the documents that were retrieved in the execution of the warrant, you have no basis whatsoever to characterize it* as a minor paperwork issue.  That is simply wishful thinking on your part because you've apparently bought into the myth that the DOJ is always wrong and Trump is beyond reproach.
> 
> If it was so petty, pray tell why did Trump resist turning over the docs for over a year?  And why did he fail to comply with the subpoena?  And why did the search warrant uncover twice as many docs with classified markings in a couple of hours than Trump returned to the FBI after its month-long so-called diligent search?
> 
> The Art of the Con, indeed.


You should have stopped at the end of the *bold*. We are still arguing about imaginary, speculative subjects related to Trump. Feels just like the last 6 years.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Rep. Mary Miller @RepMaryMiller
> 
> The FBI raided teenager Barron Trump's bedroom but refuses to investigate why Hunter Biden was paid millions by the Chinese, Russians, and Ukrainians (was FARA violated?) or what "10% for the Big Guy" means. TWO SYSTEMS OF JUSTICE!

----------

