Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
8.10.2022 10:40 AM
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
NEXT: Crafting Laws That Limit Private-Employer-Imposed Speech Restrictions
Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA. Naturally, his posts here (like the opinions of the other bloggers) are his own, and not endorsed by any educational institution.
Hide Comments (1062)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and
on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post
them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any
comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
A Thursday open thread late Tuesday? It’s like eating charoset outside Pesach!
A nightmare is adream filled with fear and stress. What is the name of a dream filled with delight and ecstacy?
Garland needs to resign. He should move to North Korea where they think the same. See you next Tuesday.
Poor Biden. Good week of getting things done. But, everyone is talking about Trump again.
Biden’s cough requires a humidifier. It is hacking and seems bad.
DeSantis should have had his state troopers block, taser and arrest those vile FBI Democrat thugs at the entrance.
Payback is coming, see you next Tuesdays.
Eugene saw us this Tuesday, instead of next Thursday. He is a funny dude.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
Charoset tastes great … perhaps you mean maror … or even matza?
No, I mean charoset. I like charoset – but somehow one never eats it outside seder.
It was a perfect analogy, SRG.
I have to take my mother to the doctor on Wednesday. This is extremely confusing. What happened to Wednesday? Did I take her to the doctor? What did he have to say and did he refill her prescriptions?
Sorry, we had a meeting and decided not to have a Wednesday this week.
It’s better than that! It’s like having a pepperoni pizza delivered to you at your synagogue during Yizkor on Yom Kippur.
What are we going to do Thursday?
I hope Blackman or Alder comes up with something.
I hope Eugene didn’t have a stroke.
Wasn’t there some other big event in legal news recently … something about Trump and the FBI?
Nyaah. Nothing new here. Move along now.
Or the Internal Revenge Agents will have some questions.
Ha ha yea EV and the VC aren’t probably allowed to talk about it. Just like J6
Will KJP decry this unconstitutional action? Or is that level of condemnation reserved for the Supreme Court doing their jobs?
What evidence do you have that it is unconstitutional? We know that Trump brought classified documents back to his private residence illegally. We also know that he’s under indictment for several other crimes, any of which might be sufficient to get a warrant approved by a federal judge.
Are you saying it’s unconstitutional to pursue actual federal crimes against a former president? That Trump, and next Biden, are both above the law when they leave office?
“he’s under indictment for several other crimes”
Wow, that is news. Do you have copies of the True Bills?
Ack! You’re right. “indictment” should be “investigation.”
“We know that Trump brought classified documents back to his private residence illegally” How do you “know” that? unless you know that the documents were moved after Jan.20, 2021
Omg, everyone knows that Pope Don Nico. Trump has our documents—I want them back!
SC, the complete arschloch.
OMG, what you know is that he brought documents there legally. He has allegedly illegally refused to send them back to the Archives
This isn’t necessarily a criminal investigation and all of the information I have read says Trump’s beliefs were in good faith. Are you familiar with the term “over classification”??
I am not only familiar with the term I have seen and read many overclassified documents
Trump claimed they were inadvertently shipped to Florida when his stuff was moved. Considering that he has since held on to further documents deemed important enough to get a warrant to retrieve, despite his claims otherwise, I think Shawn’s statement is a reasonable conclusion.
Trump illegally tried to keep documents that he was not lawfully entitled to, and if they are classified, then he signed the very law which makes this behavior a felony.
Trump’s beliefs were most likely in good faith. I think an issue is that Trump hasn’t started planning for a presidential library. George H W Bush announced his library’s location while he was still president.
Not too familiar with how these libraries are established, do they start them off by carting off a few boxes of official documents and dumping them around their house?
I think I’m going check out the Clinton Library in the early summer and also check out a minor league baseball game. Check it out on Google Maps, it looks pretty cool.
If the Clinton Library turn out to be a corner in a basement with a pile of dusty boxes of classified documents, do let us know!
How about if it’s a walk in safe in the basement? Which is what was actually going on in Trump’s case.
That does sound like the closest thing Trump would have to a library.
…Brett…don’t be such an object lesson in selective critical thinking. The Mara Lago basement with a (recently added) padlock on it is not a walk in safe.
” dumping them around their house” Nothing like asking in an unbiased fashion
Considering that he has since held on to further documents deemed important enough to get a warrant to retrieve
Um, try again:
During the FBI’s search Monday morning, the agency was verifying that no other documents were still at the resort after the National Archives retrieved the documents in February, a source told CNN.
So they removed stuff just for kicks?
I suppose those boxes could be empty, but seems quite an assumption.
Intellectually honest people understand there are more options than 1) empty and 2) full of classified stuff he wasn’t allowed to have, rather than proceeding directly to the false choice.
Neither of us know the full story – you’re the one arguing that maybe this was one of those warrants used to verify compliance.
I’m pointing out that’s on the far-fetched and of plausible.
I’m not arguing anything. I’m sharing a quote from a source about the purpose of the raid to well-known alt-right CNN. You can take up your beef with them.
Ah, yes. ‘Try again’ is just the traditional way you include a quote.
It’s quite clear what you meant to contradict, and your backpedaling is lame as hell.
A quote from someone actually involved that directly contradicts the off-the-cuff spew from someone around here well-known for just throwing out fanciful inflammatory shit because it’s what he wants to be true, absolutely.
Intellectually honest people understand there are more options than 1) empty and 2) full of classified stuff he wasn’t allowed to have,
Sure: maybe the boxes were full of unclassified stuff he wasn’t allowed to have!
unclassified stuff he wasn’t allowed to have!
Nice one, Too-Clever. What sort of stuff would that be, and what sort of stuff would justify sending in jack-booted thugs on a “just in case” mission?
What sort of stuff would that be,
He’s not allowed to keep any government records when he leaves office, whether or not they’re classified. Those belong to the government, not to him.
“just in case” mission?
Is this the new talking point?
Those belong to the government, not to him.
Well, actually, they belong to we the people (of whom Trump is one, despite hopeful frothing to the contrary). So maybe you meant to include the word “originals” or similar?
Another words you missed is “allegedly” — there’s nothing in play other than the government’s say-so that these documents (now unclassified under your hypo) don’t actually belong to Trump.
Finally missing is a single rationale or prior example of sending a huge, splashy show of force to remove non-sensitive documents under the sole rationale that Archives has (apparently?) said “mine.”
Other than all that, spot-on comment.
David, You have tried to prove too much.
Your explanation below would make ANYTHING produced by or for the Office of POTUS ineligible for his possession, even copies made by a government employee as thos are ipso facto government property
You have tried to prove too much. Your explanation below would make ANYTHING produced by or for the Office of POTUS ineligible for his possession,
You have tried to prove too much.
Your explanation below would make ANYTHING produced by or for the Office of POTUS ineligible for his possession,
Um, yes? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Pretty much everything that touched in any way on his job belongs to the government, not to him. Have you read the Presidential Records Act?
even copies made by a government employee as thos are ipso facto government property
I’m not entirely sure what you intend to refer to. Do you mean a literal photocopy of a (nonclassified) document? The PRA does exclude from the definition of presidential record “extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.”
Um, no. A “source” might have spun it that way to CNN, but that’s not how warrants work. You have to provide probable cause to believe that evidence is in a place to get a warrant to search it; you can’t get one by saying, “We just want to be sure that there aren’t any other ones there.”
Yeah, that’d be the first time in history someone fudged the facts to get a warrant because they wanted to have a look around.
Of course not. There’s a great case going on in San Mateo regarding an outgoing sheriff, his friend and benefactor, and a batmobile replica costing nearly $200K being built in another state. Fake everything in that case. Have a look. It’s fun.
But having said that, you’re trying to say that some random rich dude in small-town San Mateo is equivalent to the politically powerful, wealthy, former president that has gotten himself into a situation no other president ever has and which presents significant professional and political risks for the DOJ and its leadership. They’re both fruit in the same way an apple and Jim Nabors are fruit.
See you next Thursday.
Good thing I checked before posting that myself, or it would have been a Me Too….
See You Next THursday
S Y N TH
You’re a replicant!
Early bird got more than the worm on this one. 🙂
It will be interesting to follow the outfall of the raid on Trump’s basement. One thing seldom mentioned it every prez since Carter has been contacted by Archives about returning documents they took when they left office.
There is no real dispute Hillary mishandled classified material and destroyed potential evidence and suffered no repercussions.
But maybe more to the point any president, including Trump, has the power to unclassify documents.
The longer the DOJ/FBI delay coming up with good solid reasons for the raid the more it will seem like a crass political move. A simple Trump took classified documents home from work will not cut it given the pass Clinton (and others have got). Not to mention Trump’s lawyers were in talks about which documents he could keep and which (if any) needed to be returned.
Given the now accepted farce the DOJ/FBI created with the Russian connection it seems unlikely they will be given a pass unless there are solid unknown so far reasons for the raid.
What we do know is the judge that OKed the raid is suspect; something that does not bode well given that the DOJ/FBI are now in a position where they need to be like Ceasar’s wife.
A lawyer for Donald Trump disclosed that about a dozen boxes of materials were removed during the search. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/09/trump-fbi-search-mar-a-lago/
The linked Washington Post article indicates that Trump is seeking recommendations of criminal defense lawyers who could represent him in the wake of the search. Anyone agreeing to do so would be well advised to collect a healthy retainer, payable in advance.
Reports are that people associated with Trump are concerned that the FBI planted evidence at Mar-a-Lago. FBI agents refused to allow Trump’s lawyers access to observe the search. They also demanded that the security cameras be turned off.
The FBI has already illegally manufactured evidence once in order to “get Trump” and his associates. Did they do it again?
When the FBI has already been found guilty of manufacturing evidence once, and then they don’t let you watch any search and demand the cameras be turned off….
It’s a valid concern that they may plant evidence or manufacture it again.
That’s always a valid concern, that’s why we have trials. I’m glad you’re suddenly waking up to the fact that the police can’t always be trusted. Keep that in mind the next time the police murders someone.
You pretty much always have to draw averse inferences when the cops refuse to allow what they do to be documented. I’m on board with that. The FBI refuses to record their interviews, that alone is sufficient to establish that the organization is corrupt.
‘I mean, it’s fine for ordinary people to be treated like this, but when it’s someone rich and powerful and right-wing and obviously shady as fuck? THAT’S where the line has to be drawn!’
No one above said it was fine.
No, every other comment thread Mr. Bellmore has ever been in said that.
No-one started screaming about civil war over it until a Trump property was searched on foot of an entirely legal warrant, either. Nobody’s even disputing that there were documents there to be recovered, they just act as if it was an injustice to shake a civilisation to its foundations and invent stuff about it to get angry over.
“entirely legal warrant”
Can you share the affidavit submitted to get the warrant?
So you want to see evidence for Nige’s claim?
OK. Are you going to do the same for all the comments that this is a witch hunt – excuse me, Witch Hunt – and that Trump has done nothing wrong and it’s politically motivated?
No? I didn’t think so.
“I didn’t think so.”
Of course not. Only idiots think it wasn’t “politically motivated”.
If anything the political motivation is to go easy on him. Or maybe it’s not political, but some other thing.
If only the police/FBI had cameras on their body that could be accessed and recorded their actions.
Gosh, why can’t the FBI afford that? And why demand the security cameras be turned off?
Glad to see you’re on board for police bodycams now. Who knew that Trump could creat so much bipartisan consensus?
I never haven’t been on board.
You’re a degenerate, lying asshole.
What? In terms of transparency, it’s a great idea. It protects the people and the police both. Of course I’m on board.
Armchair, I am trying to figure out how, “planted,” is supposed to work. The FBI is supposed to give Trump an inventory of everything they take. Hence, anything not in that inventory has no provenance as the product of this search. How could the Justice Department even claim to know anything in relation to a, “planted,” document which was not included in the inventory? Where would they say they got it? What would connect it to Trump?
If a planted document is in the inventory, why doesn’t Trump just disclose it immediately, and repudiate it as a, “plant?”
And if he did, would you believe him?
I think it’s really telling that Trump supporters are already to the ‘whatever the find, it is fake.’
Really not much of a vote of confidence this isn’t about Trump or isn’t anything largely criminal. Not even going to wait for more details to come out, just straight to the ‘it’s not what it looks like, the FBI is framing him in a large conspiracy of some sort!’
Have they faked stuff in the recent past all in the name of “get Trump”? Steele dossier and FISA warrants
“Have they faked stuff in the recent past”
Why yes they did. Got “heavily” punished for it.
“A former top FBI lawyer convicted of forgery during the federal investigation of Russian interference into the 2016 election can now practice law again in Washington, D.C. after a one-year suspension of his license.
Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty to a felony in August 2020, admitted to doctoring an email that served as support a Russiagate wiretap of Carter Page, a former campaign official in President Donald Trump.
In January, Judge James Boasberg ordered the disgraced lawyer to work 400 hours of community service and 12 months probation, ending at the end of 2021.”
So….not Trump, and one guy not the FBI.
“former top FBI lawyer”
So yes FBI.
Do you think he did this to get Carter Page?
Bob from Ohio : “Do you think he did this to get Carter Page?”
Yes I do, Bob.
The first time the FBI got a FISA warrant on Page was in 2014, two years before he had any connection to Trump. The second time was in late 2016, after that connection was over.
No doubt the link to Trump added impetus to the second investigation, being part of a broader pattern. Although the FBI didn’t yet know DJT’s former campaign head gave secret briefings to a Russian spy, they knew he was deeply in debt to oligarchs linked to the Kremlin. Although they didn’t yet know General Flynn was lying to multiple people about his contact with Russian officials, they already knew he’d been on the Russian government payroll.
And it would be over a year before they learned Trump had Michael Cohen sneaking into Moscow to negotiate a business deal with Kremlin officials. This occurred throughout the ’16 campaign, with perks & sweeteners offered to Putin to grease the way. But the FBI already knew a Trump advisor, George Papadopoulos, had bragged about his inside knowledge on coming actions by Russian Intelligence. The poor guy got drunk and couldn’t keep his mouth shut.
So yeah, Page was another part of a troubling pattern. But the FBI was worried about him being a Russian spy long before he met Trump.
Big “geometric logic” vibe from you.
“secret briefings to a Russian spy,”
LOL He allegedly gave him some poll info.
Really, Bob? Let’s walk thru this, shall we: (1) Manafort is deeply in hock to Kremlin stooges. (2) Although deeply in debt, he takes the job as Trump’s campaign head without pay. (3) During the campaign, he sneaks away from Trump’s side to brief someone U.S. Intelligence lists as a Russian spy.
Yet you find this untroubling because all Manafort talked about was “polls” (allegedly). And your source for that (alleged) fact? Manafort himself. That would be the same Manafort who just admitted systematically lying to Mueller after taking his plea deal.
In a book, no less. Manafort admitted perjuring himself to the grand jury in a book Manafort wrote. You really know how to pick’em, Bob !!
I know right? One former FBI guy = ALL THE FBI FOREVER Multiple dodgy connections with Russian intelligence = just some polling data
So, what national secrets did Manafort have access to, Sherlock? The location of Wisconsin? Hilalry’s political gifts?
Manafort was just a slightly sleazy political consultant, like many of his kind, not some sort of spy. If the Russians paid him for campaign gossip, good for him.
“dodgy connections with Russian intelligence ”
What secrets did Manafort have to share? Dude was a campaign manager, not Robert Oppenheimer.
During the campaign, he sneaks away from Trump’s side to brief someone U.S. Intelligence lists as a Russian spy. Yet you find this untroubling because all Manafort talked about was “polls” (allegedly). And your source for that (alleged) fact? Manafort himself.
During the campaign, he sneaks away from Trump’s side to brief someone U.S. Intelligence lists as a Russian spy.
Yet you find this untroubling because all Manafort talked about was “polls” (allegedly). And your source for that (alleged) fact? Manafort himself.
Not only that, but the MAGAts never take the next step of asking themselves: why would a Russian spy want secret polling data? What value would that have to the Russian government? Unless, of course, they wanted to interfere with the election, in which case the information would have utility.
“why would a Russian spy want secret polling data?”
Campaigns openly release such “secrets” all the time. Internal campaign polls are not a national security issue.
Sure, Bob – it was a collusion issue, not a national security issue.
As laid out in the Mueller report.
Cheer up, Bob!
Granted : You find yourself frantically weaseling to defend a Russian spy who (also) headed Trump’s campaign, and that’s gotta feel sordid and demeaning. But the news isn’t all bad. Here’s two bright spots:
(1) Remember that sex tape with Moscow prostitutes & Trump? Per Mueller’s report, it was a fake. When Trump used Cohen to suppress it in October 2016, the latter had a Russian businessman named Giorgi Rtskhiladze act as intermediary. Giorgi reported back by text: ‘Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know’ But he also said the tape was probably fabricated by the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, a host of the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant. So no Trumpian g-showers, which must make you feel much better.
(Both Rtskhiladze & Cohen testified to the grand jury)
(2) Remember when everyone was mystified over Trump’s lap-dog deference to Putin in interviews & comments during the ’16 campaign? That led to all kind of theories then. But once we learned Trump had Cohen sneaking into Moscow to negotiate a massive business deal with Kremlin officials, everything became clear. You see, the talks lasted throughout the campaign. Right up to the eve of Election Day, Trump thought he might score big. So of course he used campaign interviews & speeches to try & grease the deal. What else is a presidential election for?
“and one guy not the FBI.”
I know, right? The FBI fucks one goat…
If that’s your take, I have some bad news about the Trump administration
But that’s not your take, this is just you circling the wagons to defend your guy. Yet again.
Neither were faked by the FBI.
I think that if the FBI wanted people to believe they weren’t planting evidence, they should not have demanded that the surveillance cameras be shut off, and that Trump’s lawyers not be permitted to witness the search.
Just like if they wanted people to believe they don’t lie about what goes on during their interviews, they should stop refusing to record them.
As it is, they find being able to fake stuff more important than people not doubting its legitimacy.
Pretty obvious that they don’t care what people think.
I think that only a mentally ill person would believe the FBI was planting evidence. And one can’t convince mentally ill people of reality.
Assuming it’s true, can you explain why they requested that security cameras be turned off? That’s always a bad sign.
Bored Lawyer, why is that a bad sign? Not being facetious.
Is it a written SOP that the FBI disallows observation of their enforcement? Would the FBI cite the potential of seeing classified information on camera as the reason to disallow observation?
The potential of reading materials on a CCTV is pretty small AND the recording could be classified subject to review. Given the unprecedented nature of this search (well outside of SOP), there is no good reason that it should be be recorded and the recordings subject to judicial review.
The “they won’t find anything but anything they find was planted by the fbi” began late afternoon yesterday. I think it was Turnip’s lawyer Bobb who kicked it off but she might’ve been just passing it on.
Bobb is a former OAN host.
Reports are that people associated with Trump are concerned ..
I’d say Trumpists are getting their lies ready, and you are enlisting to spread them.
I’ll repeat what I said above.
Assuming it’s true, can you explain why they requested that security cameras be turned off? That’s always a bad sign.
One would think that the FBI and DOJ would want to be completely open and transparent in such a raid. Hiding your activities invites speculation.
One might ask if this request is unusual, first, and then second ask whether the FBI requested it or Trump.
The whole raid was unusual. Anyone with a brain knows there will be huge blowback, and all kinds of slimy attempts to explain things away. So requesting it was bad judgment.
The report above, which admittedly is unsubstantiated, was that the FBi requested it. Not clear to me why Trump would.
And BTW, most federal courts hold you have a 1st Amendment right to video police in public places doing their job. Which I would think applies all the more so on your own property. So if I were the owner, I would have said, No, and if you force me, a lawsuit will follow. Or insist they get the Magistrate Judge on the phone and order it permitted.
The only exception seems to be where the police claim that the video may be used to guide violent retaliation against the officers, or enable somebody they’re trying to capture to evade them.
That doesn’t stop the police from doing it, of course. You’re in a really bad position to say “no” to armed cops making demands.
Again, Bored, you’re making an extraordinary ask and then being super pissed that the standard procedure was followed.
If there was a deviation from SOP, I fully expect you’d be super pissed off about that as well.
This isn’t about transparency, it’s about finding a reason to call this illegitimate while not being as ridiculous as some of the non-lawyers are.
Sarcastr0, the way this entire matter appears to have been handled makes me question the command judgement of the decision-makers.
I want to see the warrant and supporting documentation or affidavits that go along with the warrant. This is a case where more transparency, not less, is in the public interest.
It’s as common as it is convenient for those who are accused to complain about planted evidence and “lack of transparency.” That doesn’t bother the masses until it gores THEIR particular ox.
And let’s be honest with ourselves, videotape doesn’t fix all woes here … think about the utterly innocent videotape of election activities that the partisans clipped down to create a misleading narrative.https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-georgia-media-social-media-e9a73462e39e7aa39683f0f582a6659e
Why would FBI and other LE not want video of search activities? (A) to protect the searched parties from embarrassment; (B) because they expect sensitive records to be involved; (C) to reduce role-playing for the camera by civilians on scene; (D) to reduce the opportunity for civilian manipulation of the video record. There may be others.
Also, DOJ appears to prohibit the use of body-worn cameras during search warrant executions where there are potential issues of national security.https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-13000-obtaining-evidence#9-13.100
“It’s as common as it is convenient for those who are accused to complain about planted evidence and “lack of transparency.””
Great deflection. I am not “accused” of anything. Try again.
The warrant is in Trump’s possession, Commenter. The affidavits are kept close hold as SOP.
You can want more transparency, but consider for a moment why that’s SOP.
Trump could release the warrant literally at any moment, if he thought it was beneficial to his position to do so.
The warrant application will not be released unless there’s an indictment; that’s the way it works.
So David….it is the warrant and all supporting documentation and affidavits that the judge used to make his determination to sign the warrant that must be released. It is in the public interest to know why a step of this gravity was undertaken.
Commenter, No, the public interest need not be so impatient and demanding in this case – that’s just melodrama at this point.
Second, I do not like this double standard of ‘if you are important then the usual standard must be different.’
Third, if Trump won’t release these things that are vital to the public interest, then maybe it’s on him to stop being petulant, eh?
Fourth, the media is petitioning the government for the warrant to be released, because Trump won’t do it. The affidavits may follow after, depending on the contents of the warrant.
And we now know that the DOJ also petitioned the judge to release it and it looks like it was granted.
So, as usual, the issue is your imputations about me, rather than the FBI procedure. I am not a target, and my house was not raided. I could care less if Trump goes to jail. I do care a lot about the machinery of government is used for political purposes.
You have the burden of proof. Prove to me that SOP is to force targets to turn off their security cameras. Otherwise, stop blowing smoke out your rear end.
(And as I posted on the other thread, warrant applicaitons are often the subjects of motions to unseal. Whether anyone makes one remains to be seen, but I would be surprised if hte press did not at least try.)
“Great deflection. I am not ‘accused’ of anything.”
Not you, genius. The guy you’re so worried might need some excuses to explain away evidence.
Prove to me that SOP is to force targets to turn off their security cameras.
That’s not your issue, though – your issue is the affidavits.
Don’t weasel you goalposts.
You’re the one saying it’s suspicious, BL. Something being suspicious is obviously outside the bounds of being considered standard, thus the burden of proof is yours.
I am not worried. If Trump goes to jail, that would mean De Santis would have a clear path to the White House. Which would be a vast improvement over both Trump and the current resident.
Seriously, is everything in this world binary, such that any criticism of the FBI or DOJ must be pro-Trump. That guy, whom I have known for 35 years is a con-artist (having lived near NYC since I was 5), lives rent-free in a lot of people’s head.
“If Trump goes to jail, that would mean De Santis would have a clear path to the White House.”
Maybe. Running from jail might actually help Trump.
Ok — I’ll accept your representation that you’re not stumping for Trump. It’s easy to misread others’ agendas in this commentariat.
I do have deep concerns about the reflexive anti-FBI/DOJ sentiments in these comments (not just yours). No organization is perfect, but I would prefer to see the tie go to highly professionalized law enforcement organizations that adhere in 99% of cases to pretty strict rules. Their internal policing is robust. They do that so they can retain credibility in 1000’s of cases before judges and juries where defendants make very similar arguments about planted evidence and lack of total transparency. And most of the time, the public accepts that. It’s only when a sacred ox is on the altar that the usual law-and-order crowd suddenly sees boogeymen in all the SOPs. We may not like the SOPs but they don’t suggest a frame-up.
It would certainly save you the energy of having to pretend you don’t think he’s a crook.
“highly professionalized law enforcement organizations”
I thought we were discussing the FBI?
FBI: Famous But Incompetent. Mostly good at entrapping dumb people.
Why do you say it’s SOP to search homes in secret?
LOL this wasn’t secret.
Doing the raid while locking out all observers is conducting the raid in secret.
By definition of the ‘secret’.
And no one ever knew what happened or what these mysterious agents took.
Info is left to come out, but this is far from secret, lol.
Were there any observers there to see if they planted anything?
Or were their actions guarded in mystery with self-reported outcomes?
Ah yes, everything the government does without official observers along is secret.
You are bad at words.
Yes when the government acts without transparency it is by definition acting in secret.
e.g. counting votes, raiding homes
These are definitions of words.
Yes, everything the government does is secret when they exclude observers.
Arguments that rely on redefining words are bad arguments, and the people who make them aren’t trying to be honest and forthright.
This is absolutely about transparency, you moron.
This is just the 2020 election, all over again. Shuffling the deck under the table and then demanding everybody believe it isn’t stacked has become the Democrats’ only playbook.
It’s called ‘spoliation’: You trash transparency, and people are entitled to draw averse inferences.
You are arguing the FBI spoliated it’s own affidavits?!
Wow, I don’t think you’re doing alright.
You and so many on the right seem to be calling for the FBI to hold a press conference to discuss their active investigation (maybe of the former President, maybe of someone else). What on earth is this? I thought it was well known that law enforcement generally, and the FBI particularly, has standard operating procedures which prohibit ongoing investigations. They investigate and they recommend charges or don’t. The exception in the Hillary Clinton case dramatically proved the wisdom of the rule.
Why do you think it is wise to depart from the SOP here?
In fact, I have a hard time believing you or anyone else, including the editorial board of the National Review actually thinks it is a good idea, generally or in this case, but knows that they can scream about transparency all day long and the FBI is required by ethics and SOP to remain silent and go about their business. It reeks of bad faith to ask the FBI to “explain” to the public why they sought and executed this search warrant.
From FBI.gov: Can I obtain detailed information about a current FBI investigation that I see in the news? No. Such information is protected from public disclosure, in accordance with current law and Department of Justice and FBI policy. This policy preserves the integrity of the investigation and the privacy of individuals involved in the investigation prior to any public charging for violations of the law. It also serves to protect the rights of people not yet charged with a crime.
If you want a change in this policy, please explain why. And I don’t think “well, I want it in just this one case”, so please explain why this is a bad policy, not why you don’t like it in only this one case.
(And, of course, Trump is free to release the search warrant, which the FBI does not do, if he is concerned about transparency. That’s a first step, but he won’t take it because it would be embarrassing. Yet, you all will continue to shill about “transparency.” It’s just bizarre.)
No this is about demanding special treatment then having tantrums when you don’t get your way.
Why should anyone honor the FBI’s ” standard operating procedures”? The FBI is supposed to serve the public.
They’re a police agency and not Burger King. You don’t get to have it your way. You get it the way everyone else gets it.
At the risk of feeding a troll:
Because standard operating procedures are one method of avoiding improper political or personal influences. You have one rule that you apply to everyone. If you make every decision ad hoc, that virtually guarantees unequal treatment under the law.
But you’re probably bright enough to have known that. Trolls gonna troll.
Any lawyer considering taking this guy’s case should take into account that this is not just a guy known to stiff on his lawyer bills. This is a guy known to turn on and blame his lawyers when things don’t go his way.
What?! Lawyers getting blamed when they lose??!? How dare anyone blame the lawyers!!
Oh, so what. This is usually treated as an administrative issue, not a criminal issue. At least, that is what Alan Dershowitz says.
Sandy Berger stole classified, original documents from the US Archives. He got off with a fine and other administrative punishments. Hillary Clinton had a home server with plenty of classified information on it; she got off with no punishment at all.
The FBI used a search warrant instead of a subpoena so that they would not have to grant use immunity to Trump if it turns out he had any remaining documents to turn over.
Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge, paid a $50,000 fine, and was put on probation for two years.
At least, that is what Alan Dershowitz says.
Are you even trying to be taken seriously?
Trump took roughly 27 boxes of classified material home with him. He returned 15 boxes when asked back in February. Repercussions from this? None that I’m aware of. This follows directly from your initial claim that it is just an “administrative issue.” It appears Trump benefited from that as well.
Until, that is, they learned he didn’t return all of it.
He may have wanted his generals to act like Nazi Germany’s generals, but he should have been more worried about his librarians.
What about the magistrate judge who issued the search warrant is suspect?
They issued the search warrant.
Here is Marco Rubio giving a characteristically cogent explanation: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1557174712953872384
Jeffery Epstein’s defense lawyer now judge.
He was not Jeffrey Epstein’s defense lawyer. He represented some of Epstein’s employees in an investigation back in 2007.
How does having been a defense lawyer in private practice make his decision of whether or not to issue a search warrant suspect? (He had also been a federal prosecutor.)
Show your work.
They lie. They lie like rugs.
Who paid him?
Dude quit DOJ and went to work the next day in the same office as Jeffrey Epstein’s defense lawyer.
He was there to make sure the employees wouldn’t rat.
Do you really think that the Epstein connection actually undermines the case? If anything, it would tend to bolster it, showing that the evidence is so overwhelming that even an Epstein associate could not deny it, despite Epstein and Trump’s well-documented friendship.
The “Epstein” connection means nothing in this context.
Now as to who has not been indicted for l’affaire Epstein, that is a horse of a different color. (Yeah, I mixed metaphors. Not a crime. Yet.)
“He was there to make sure the employees wouldn’t rat.”
I have read that some of Reinhart’s clients were granted immunity in the Epstein investigation, which usually indicates a quid pro quo for furnishing information to the prosecution.
I have not seen the affidavit in support of a warrant. According to this morning’s news Trump’s people did not want to disclose the warrant.
Given that Trump has indicated he might run for office again, and given the whole Comey mess in 2016, I would expect the FBI and DOJ to be tight-lipped about this investigation lest they do to Trump what they did to Clinton.
Wonder why not.
I’m sure they will spew some BS and Brett and others will swallow it whole.
I always follow the Brandeis rule. More disclosure, not less. If that discomfits Trump and his supporters, too bad.
I always follow the Brandeis rule. More disclosure, not less.
Weird as hell this is the first time we’ve heard you talk about it.
So please explain your disagreement with FBI’s and DOJ’s standard policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations. To help you, here is the most relevant text of the policy:
DOJ Manual Section 1.7.400, subsections B and C:
B. DOJ generally will not confirm the existence of or otherwise comment about ongoing investigations. Except as provided in subparagraph C of this section, DOJ personnel shall not respond to questions about the existence of an ongoing investigation or comment on its nature or progress before charges are publicly filed.
C. When the community needs to be reassured that the appropriate law enforcement agency is investigating a matter, or where release of information is necessary to protect the public safety, comments about or confirmation of an ongoing investigation may be necessary, subject to the approval requirement in subparagraph A.
Please explain why you believe that is not sound policy, rather than argue for a special exemption in this case. And on that last point, remember the negative consequences that flowed to Hillary Clinton from Comey’s ill-advised decision make an exception to this policy in a similarly high profile case, making the exception pretty good evidence for the wisdom of the rule.
Didn’t want or aren’t permitted?
Sealed warrants prohibited people from disclosing them. This assumes the FBI actually gave them a copy.
do we know that the sealed warrant was such that no party was allowed to disclose it?
Trump can release the warrant at any time. He has a copy of it, and those are not sealed.
This is wonderful. As MTG said, let’s defund the FBI. Let’s eliminate the FISA court. These are limbs of the “deep state” that the left has despised for decades. Suddenly it’s a bipartisan issue!
If the right decides to dismantle large parts of the criminal justice system in order to save Trump, you won’t see much pushback from the left apart from some crocodile tears.
I think you’d have more chance for bipartisan support if some actual injustice was being perpetrated, not just Trump supporters spitting blood over the feds recovering boxes of classified/sensitive documents he was refusing to return.
Of course, he should return any documents requested by the Archives. As he is no longer the prime classification authority in the US. He could have been under court order to have his storage facilities inspected. Given that he is under secret service protection, the security of the materials is not as much a problem as the fact that future release could be an embarrassment to the Administration in power.
Given that he is under secret service protection, the security of the materials is not as much a problem as the fact that future release could be an embarrassment to the Administration in power.
They are not secure from him. I do not think Trump would be above using them for some nefarious purpose.
And the search appears to have been partly in response to someone close to Trump who knew about the documents and it is unclear whether they (or others with similar access) would have had proper security clearance to see the documents. I am not reassured that it is okay for a former President to take highly classified documents to his personal residence/office because the Secret Service is there when the President or is family is.
The problem is magnified when the former President who unjustifiably took (it appears from all reports and I see no one denying it) highly classified documents, failed to return them when asked (which appears to be the case). Just invoking the Secret Service as if that makes everything okay is wrongheaded.
Also, the whole episode literally cries out for an answer to the question: why would someone take and refuse to return highly classified documents?
Everyone on the right sure had an answer for why Hillary had a private server and wiped it before turning it over. Why isn’t that same presumption applied here? Do you really think Trump is less sleazy than Hillary to the point that it is more likely there is an innocent explanation for squirreling away highly classified documents?
(And disclosure: I think it is always, including in the Hillary case, the most reasonable view that someone improperly removing/deleting/retaining classified material is likely doing so either for a nefarious purpose or to avoid embarrassment. It’s hard to even imagine a benign reason. At least in Hillary’s case, the initial set up of the server could semi-plausibly be justified by an antiquated government email system. Wiping the server not so much. Taking boxes of highly classified materials and refusing to return them seems very much like wiping a server. It’s highly sus. And Hillary partly avoided consequences because the wiping couldn’t be proven to be intentionally for the purpose of destroying the information. If there were highly classified documents in Trump’s personal safe, don’t know how he explains why he didn’t turn those over. But, of course, Brett, Bob, Wuz, and the usual suspects will buy whatever excuse Trump provides, including “they were planted!”.)
“They are not secure from him. ” Nonsense, if he still retains a clearance to the material, they need not be “secured from him.” “Secured storage facility” is a term of art. Whether Trump had a nefarious purpose is an all together different matter.
Security clearance isn’t enough. You need the clearance and an approved purpose. As president, that wasn’t an issue. As ex-president, that very much is.
When I had secret clearance, I wasn’t allowed to see anything I wanted any time I wanted any place I wanted. It was limited to my need-to-know for only the time required. You cannot check this stuff out like a library book and then forget to return it.
Who says he retains a clearance?
And what if he does? You don’t just get to randomly look at classified stuff because you have a clearance. There has to be a reason.
He doesn’t retain a clearance because he never had a clearance. Presidents don’t get clearances; their access to classified material is inherent in their job.
“let’s defund the FBI”
Don’t think so. Just a purge of upper management.
Steven Miller would make a fine acting FBI director.
The FBI enforced laws against someone I like! REFORM!
I don’t want to reform it, I want to use it.
Bob gets off on freaking people out by playing a fascist on the Internet.
Don’t be terrified – it’s actually pretty sad.
“gets off … on the Internet.”
Enough about you.
The Democrats will fight tooth and nail to keep their enforcers and spies.
Those enforcers and spies are in your cult-riddled imagination, so no.
It’s an irrefutable fact that the Federals have unconstitutionally spied on Americans.
It’s an irrefutable fact that the FBI treats Americans differently depending upon where they sit on the power hierarchy.
See Epsteins’s clients vs. J6 grannies.
That’s all true. The Democrats have been upset about that state of affairs for literally decades, very nearly a century. Worried about law enforcement’s abuses? Welcome to the left!
There’s Democrat crying about the DOJ in present times, now is there?
There was Hillary just five years ago.
The ONLY silver lining to Trump doing a Grover Cleveland would be the elimination of the FBI. The bureau has been dirty for its entire existence, still haunted by the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover. Still run by the ghost of J. Edgar, really.
“There is no real dispute Hillary mishandled classified material and destroyed potential evidence and suffered no repercussions.”
No repercussions? It destroyed her political career. Which is what’s supposed to happen – no crimes, but a career-ending misjudgement.
Whereas we know Trump has committed treason for money, going by his own statements, so while they are tiptoeing around it, there isn’t long left before he’s arrested – and obviously there is a prima facie case for issuing a warrant, when the proprietor has publicly stated that there are ongoing crimes at that location.
I yield to no one in my disapproval of Donald Trump, but an accusation of treason — a wartime offense — is unsupportable.
not guilty — There is this, from something calling itself the, National Constitution Center:
The offense of “levying war” against the United States was interpreted narrowly in Ex parte Bollman & Swarthout (1807), a case stemming from the infamous alleged plot led by former Vice President Aaron Burr to overthrow the American government in New Orleans. The Supreme Court dismissed charges of treason that had been brought against two of Burr’s associates—Bollman and Swarthout—on the grounds that their alleged conduct did not constitute levying war against the United States within the meaning of the Treason Clause. It was not enough, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion emphasized, merely to conspire “to subvert by force the government of our country” by recruiting troops, procuring maps, and drawing up plans. Conspiring to levy war was distinct from actually levying war. Rather, a person could be convicted of treason for levying war only if there was an “actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design.” In so holding, the Court sharply confined the scope of the offense of treason by levying war against the United States.
I agree that on publicly available evidence, Trump is not yet culpable of treason within the Constitutional definition. He has committed treason by almost every dictionary definition. And he looks perilously close constitutionally. On the basis of the Marshall quotes above, it looks like two witnesses who testify to seeing Trump actively promoting or controlling the January 6 capitol attack could incriminate him on that charge. The investigation is not over.
More generally, circumstances from the Mar-A-Lago search raise other troubling questions. What can explain a trove of allegedly secret documents which Trump chose to retain, while returning others to the National Archives? Given Trump’s power to declassify, what explains his neglect to exercise that power? There seems to be an inference that what he was holding onto, he found more useful if it stayed secret. Various motives might explain that. One includes information useful for blackmail. Another includes motives akin to espionage.
You are severely delusional.
How can we ever reconcile with these people?
You could start by breaking free from the Trump cult.
And become a Federal Bootlicker like you?
I’m no federal bootlicker. You can break out of the cult and keep your principles.
Wasn’t there an “actual assemblage of men” at the US Capitol? And weren’t there multiple witnesses?
‘In time of war’ only applies to half the definition. The other half applies to Trump, unequivocally. Just because he was too incompetent to get anywhere with his war against the US doesn’t mean it isn’t treason.
Mental illness isn’t a competition, man. Good grief.
You don’t think there’s something wrong with a president who gets as close to treason as he possibly can in a bid to stay in power, clinging on to plausible deniability with talking points such as “I said the word ‘peaceful’ once after saying ‘fight like hell’ over and over?”
As I understand it, Trump took some unconstitutional legal positions regarding elections. He then asked members of Congress like Mo Brooks to go along with it, and Mo refused and we ended up losing a good Congressman as a result. Just one of Trump’s many blunders and flaws and things that I disagree with.
January 6 was a mostly peaceful protest by unarmed citizens. It was dwarfed by many incredibly violent riots during the preceding year. Calling it an “insurrection” is immediately discrediting.
Look up any definition of insurrection. It’ll fit. But who even cares what word gets used? We all know what happened.
No, it was just a protest like the Kavanaugh protests or the sit-in of the legislature in Iowa or any number of other protests.
Nobody was armed. They were not going to overthrow the government. That is delusional, full stop. Can’t you see this?
The overwhelming majority of the protesters there, 99.9%+, were entirely nonviolent and didn’t even commit any minor nonviolent infraction.
Those who attacked capitol police or destroyed property should be charged appropriately, but not held indefinitely without bail and beaten by prison guards, and given much heavier criminal penalties than most others who commit similar acts.
But that group is less than 0.1% of those who protested that day. Some of them were federal agents provocateur. None of them had a single firearm, bayonet, sword or knife. They were breaking windows and causing mayhem, an in appropriate way of expressing their frustration to be sure, but one that we were treated to endlessly throughout 2020 as the media and politicians made excuses for it and legitimized it, and even the medical establishment made excuses for it during COVID lockdowns.
This contrary delusional narrative rests on absurdities like the nonfunctional gallows someone built as a protest prop. Oddly enough, it wasn’t an insurrection when guillotines were used as a protest prop by protesters crowding the Trump white house.
Whether the protesters were right or wrong in their substantive complaints or contentions about the legalities of election procedures is not relevant.
This is my favorite definition, from Cambridge, and it’s one of the most strict:
an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence
This seems to perfectly capture the day. Organized, check. (Not everyone was organized, but the instigators we’re, and I’m not talking about Trump.) Group of people, check. Attempt to defeat their government and take control of their country, check. This was their stated goal, there’s no guesswork needed. Usually by violence, check. Violence doesn’t require guns, nor does it require 100% participation. The mechanism being employed was violence, i.e. physical force, not some other mechanism like non-violent resistance or subversive literature.
But anyway, like I said the vocabulary is mostly irrelevant. No one believes your fantasy version of events because we’ve seen it on TV and heard from the insurrectionists themselves. They were there to stop the peaceful transition of power, not to simply register an opinion. They were armed with guns, zip ties, knives, tear gas, etc. It’s a lie that no guns were found on the insurrectionists. Not many were, but not many were arrested at the time, so there wasn’t an opportunity to find them.
Not many were, but not many were arrested at the time,
Yes, this is an important caveat to the bullshit arguments we keep hearing in defense of the “tourists.” It was a riot. The vast vast majority of participants escaped, and were only arrested later. That they did not have firearms at the time they were arrested is utterly unprobative of whether they had firearms at the time they were attacking the capitol. The only thing we know is that they didn’t use firearms during the attack. The rest is bullshit.
Calling it an “insurrection” is immediately discrediting.
Pretending a violent attempt to prevent the transition of power a “mostly peaceful protest,” rather than an insurrection would be immediately discrediting, if you had any credibility left.
99.9% to 99.99% or more of the protesters were peaceful. Wouldn’t you say that is mostly peaceful?
Violent attempts to prevent enforcement of the law were de rigueur in 2020.
No one on here is talking about the peaceful ones, only the ones who breached the capitol. Don’t be disingenuous – you’re bad at it.
All of the protesters were peaceful. We’re talking about the insurrectionists, who attacked the capitol, not the protesters who came to the rally beforehand, listened to speeches, and left.
The FBI wrote a report that verbatim tracked a criminal statute that goes back to WWI. And then altered it to make her seem more innocent.
Sorry, she was guilty and should have served some time.
Which does not mean that Trump is not guilty. Both are possible, and in my mind at least, likely. But the double standard rankles.
This is false equivalence. Clinton’s email scandal was a combination of poor but understandable choices. The classified information she moved through the private system was not marked as such when she received it. She and her team attempted to meet federal law by forwarding communications into the federal system. They messed up. It was a bad idea with lots of foreseeable risk.
Trump brought boxes of classified documents (which he didn’t declassify first) back to his residence in violation of federal law. He wasn’t trying to get around an antiquated system and got hung up in a bad design while trying to do the right thing; He packed up a bunch of classified documents and brought them home and stored them in the basement of his business/residence.
A little perspective here would be nice.
” It was a bad idea with lots of foreseeable risk.”
You mean “gross negligence.” Like the term in the section of the criminal code she violated?
If you want to argue that Trump deserves a heavier sentence (on the crime that yet is to be indicted, let alone proven), then fine. But Clinton clearly violated a criminal statute, that was deliberately set up to make persons of responsibility bear more responsibility.
And it was not up to her or her team to make “choices.” This is government information. IF the system was antiquated, she could demand it be upgraded. She was not some low-level assistant, she was the Sectry of State.
Man, you sure are angry at Hillary and not at Trump!
I guess that explains why you seem to only want to talk about Hillary and not Trump here.
As to your convicting Hillary in your own mind, well, relying on ‘clearly’ while also positing negligence is not really good legal analysis, if you’d step away from partisanship and into your actual profession.
Did you even read shawn_dude whole comment, or did you read poor choices and get straight to writing how Hillary is guilty guilty guilty?
Once again, you resort to psychobabble and ad hominem.
Hillary was guilty. She got a pass she did not deserve.
And your statement that I only want to talk about HIllary is pure BS. You can just read this thread.
I am close to muting you, quite frankly.
Bored Lawyer : Hillary was guilty. She got a pass she did not deserve.
No one has ever been found guilt for anything close to Clinton’s mistakes. She mistook the status of messages that were later upgraded to Classified on subsequent review. If people went to jail for that the Feds would need a building spree to house’em all.
It would also mean her predecessors, Rice & Powell would have been imprisoned too. It would also mean that scores – maybe even hundreds – of people should have been jailed with Hillary. You see, she was on the receiving end of 99.9% of the emails later upgraded to classified. And though people sent those messages through official email accounts, there’s no legal distinction between Colin Powell’s AOL service, normal State Department email, and the private accounts of Rice aides. All are equally forbidden for classified traffic.
In short, you’re full of it. Bored Lawyer would not be sent to jail because someone sent his Bored-ness a message via unclassified means after mistaking its status. No one is. No one ever has been. No one ever will.
Maybe you should mute yourself……
Hillary was guilty. She got a pass she did not deserve.
As a lawyer, you should know better than to make that kind of snap judgement based on what you think you know.
Consider the posts from not guilty about Trump’s criminality. How do those strike you? This is the same thing, on the other side, but even more conclusory and with a vastly different certainty/explanation ratio.
Oh, I don’t disagree it was negligence–I’d go so far as to say “sheer stupidity.” But intent is part of that law too and there’s no evidence she intended to do anything illegal.
Trump takes home roughly 27 boxes of classified material. He’s ask to return it. He hands back 15 boxes in February. He claims it was accidentally boxed and moved to his residence and that appears to be the end of it. Until, that is, we now find out he held on to some of it, including some that may have been locked in his personal safe. That’s a very different fact pattern than Hillary’s idiocy and it is harder to ignore intent in a case where Trump appears to have misled the government regarding the documents he retained.
Anyone with experience in government knows that it’s nearly impossible to make it change its infrastructure even when everyone agrees it ought to be done. That doesn’t excuse Hillary’s attempts to go around it. Nor does it excuse the Trumps’ attempt to go around it which were also public (but somehow ignored.) Nor does Trump’s own use of an insecure iPhone rather than this government cell phone excuse Hillary’s stupidity.
On sites like Reason.com and its Volokh niche, I tend to roll my eyes when conservative chest-beaters go on about Hillary’s email but don’t have issues with the Trumps’ (plural) similar use of personal servers or using non-governmental cell phones for government business. It’s hard for me to even think they take themselves seriously when they bring up Hillary Clinton’s email server. If they cared about national security so passionately, they’d care about the Trumps’ own breaches. But they don’t. So it’s really just about Hillary and not anything she particularly did or didn’t do.
So… Invanka also?https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46271021
Whereas we know Trump has committed treason
What is it with morons like you who love to toss around words you don’t understand the meaning off?
” we know Trump has committed treason for money” Please cite how you ‘know’ and under what definition of treason
I don’t think the left cares at this point; They figure, you can’t fool all the people all the time, but all you really need to do is fool enough of the people enough of the time. And with most of the media so deep in the tank for them they’re suffering from nitrogen narcosis, that’s achievable.
Does it matter if they carried away business records and Barron’s old homework? The media reported it as 15 boxes of “classified documents”, and not alleged, either.
The Republicans are treating this as a normal midterm election, and the Democrats are treating it as time to wind things up and offload Erdogan’s trolley. The D’s and R’s are playing completely different games here.
Once again the telepathy is just so insightful.
The R’s are always playing the patsy.
It’s part of the Uniparty Kabuki theater.
You’re a strange man, Brett. Sometimes you sound like someone I could have a reasonable disagreement with. Other times you sound like you belong in a straightjacket, heavily medicated. Most other VC commenters are consistently one or the other, but you go back and forth quite unpredictably.
Are you saying he is bi-polar?
No. That’s something else.
Martinned — If you missed it, Bellmore has described himself as autistic. It is not inconsistent with that condition to be verbally gifted, which Bellmore seems to be, notably logical (also Bellmore), and completely at a loss about the parts of reality that get defined by inter-personal inference and tacitly established social limits.
Years ago I knew a therapist who was strikingly successful treating young children who seemed a bit like Bellmore. She described a notion of her own, which she called, “extreme thinking.” Characteristically, kids afflicted that way were brilliant logically, habitually rule-bound, and prone to out-of-control logical inferences. An example the therapist described to me was an autistic boy whose teacher would inflict group punishment for misbehavior—when the teacher was on the warpath, one word out of turn in the classroom resulted in no recess for the entire class. The child was terrified by that. He concluded that since the teacher was permitted that injustice, she was restrained by nothing at all, and could even murder children and get away with it.
Utter blindness to tacitly-operative systems of social constraint seems to be a characteristic of some people who suffer autism. Given Bellmore’s announced self-diagnosis, I find myself thinking about that example quite often when I read his comments.
That’s said, I’m beyond reluctant to diagnose people I’ve never met, particularly based on their behaviour in online comments sections. A self-diagnosis wouldn’t change that.
(Not in the least because DSM-V has created a definition of autism that is so wide that half the population must be somewhere on “the spectrum”, so that doesn’t really narrow it down.)
I have not said I’m “autistic”, I’ve said that I have Asperger’s. And I’m quite irate about the psychiatric community suddenly deciding to classify it as a form of “autism”. Not alone in that, the Asperger’s community was NOT happy about that.
Stephen, I would not say I’m “completely at a loss about the parts of reality that get defined by inter-personal inference and tacitly established social limits. ” It would be more accurate to say that people with my condition have no natural gift for such topics, and must laboriously learn them by observation and theory, in a sort of “Gorillas in the mist” manner. We have to do consciously what you have the luck of having an innate instinct for. That’s a big disadvantage, but not the same as total incapacity.
Look at that, another thing we agree on.
Marty Boy. Putting dissenters in straitjackets and on anti-psychotic is from the KGB Handbook that you found in some wet trash. Zero tolerance for your Commie ways. If you are any kind of provider, your remarks are really unethical.
Nah, torture and straitjackets pre-date the Ruskies by a long shot. You’ll have to look closer to Rome for some of those old chestnuts. And I’m sure it’s much earlier than that.https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/secrets-of-the-spanish-inquisition-revealed
Brett, have you even read 18 U.S.C. § 2071? It nowhere distinguishes between classified and unclassified documents or records.
NG, are you familiar with recent history? EVERY departing President has had arguments with the National Archives about materials they took home with them. Every last one of them. The NA wants EVERYTHING, and isn’t entitled to everything.
This is the first case where they sicced the FBI on them, and blew the safe.
And I’ve seen it’s confirmed that the FBI ordered the security cameras shut off during the search. Well, I stopped regarding them as honest when I found out they had rules against recording their interviews, so that’s just confirmation they were up to no good. But that’s my default assumption about the FBI at this point.
We’re definitely entering banana republic territory at this point.
If one outcome of all this is a massive wedge between the once stalwart lawnorder right and the traditionally conservative Feds – over TRUMP of all people – then ok. You spent enough time being fine with abuses of fed power when they’re directed at left, liberal and minority groups.
Name one abuse of the left
Martin Luther King.
Hopefully you’re not just assuming MLK was a lefty because he was black. Anyone who knows much about him at all knows he was scrupulously non-partisan, e.g.:
I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.
MLK was a lefty.
The parties were not nearly as polarized then as they are now. The southern conservatives were a powerful force in the Democratic Party, and the Republicans were just beginning their big shift to the right.
“Martin Luther King.”
He’s been dead for 55 years. Trot out the Panthers and Malcom X while you are at it.
There is not a single person still at FBI from 1968.
Got anything this century?
Closer in time than the beloved Founders.
We’ve been in banana republic territory for quite a while. Like a lobster brought to a boil we just didn’t know it.
The 2000 presidential election didn’t tip you off?
No the 1960 election tipped me off.
That one is famous, but probably less corrupt than just about every other election you guys had before. When John F. Fitzgerald, JFK’s maternal grandfather, “won” a seat in the House of Representatives in 1918 the election was found to be so currupt that they didn’t just refuse to sit him, but actually gave the seat to the other guy.
When did it become legal to talk about election fraud?
Doesn’t that talk harm out Sacred Democracy?!?
You conspicuously avoided my question as to whether you had read the statute, Brett.
18 USC 2071(a):
(a)Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Seems to me you have to have an intent to destroy the document, not just move it to your house. And it has to be willful, if you think that it belongs to you, it’s not a crime, although of course you have to return the documents.
Unless Trump packed boxes of papers himself, it will be a long stretch to prove such a crime against him. (Of course, the dumbbell may have emailed or tweeted somethign incriminating. With him, who knows.)
I don’t get that from this text. (IANAL) Logically: (conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys) OR ((Attempt) OR ((Intent) AND (Takes and carries away)))
Since he, or (presumably*) someone at his direction, packed classified documents into boxes for Trump to take home, either the first or second condition is met because documents were concealed in a basement after being removed from the White House. Additionally, this is the second visit to retrieve documents which means he didn’t fully cooperate the first time. That might go to intent. If anything related to this was found in his safe, it seems like he’d have a tough time defending himself. (Unless he gives out the combo to his safe to other people?)
* I agree that who packed the boxes and what Trump knew could be a line of defense. It would have to go to intent. But it is already established that he tore up documents while President and there’s an accusation with accompanying photos that shows what appears to be torn and flushed documents as well. So “mutilates, obliterates, or destroys” is also at play.
It is established that he knew the documents weren’t his, as the National Archives had been asking for them for a long time, and the statute is clear.
Apparently, he turned over some, but not all, of what was asked for.
Seems to me you have to have an intent to destroy the document
You skipped the bit about “conceal” or “remove”.
It’s been confirmed GSA packed the boxes
The right are promising civil war and the dismantling of the entire federal justice system because their cult leader was served with a legal warrant to return official documents he was holding on to. That’s what’s going on.
“was served with a legal warrant”
The ability of the English language to minimize things is truly astounding.
I’ve seen no indication that there was anything wrong with the warrant. Trump has a copy, he hasn’t implied anything about it other than people should keep sending him money.
Its the affidavit that discloses the alleged probable cause, not the warrant.
Still nothing stopping him releasing the warrant. Maybe he’s saving it for a fundraising drive.
Can you even conceive of the idea that Trump may have done something seriously wrong?
No. You can’t.
Can you conceive of the idea that both (a) Trump is a scumbag that likely did something criminal AND (b) the FBI and DOJ are acting in a politically corrupt manner, and abusing the system?
Has the conjunction AND somehow been banned from people’s brains?
While the possibility exists, it requires some evidence. The presumption of innocence applies to both Trump and the DOJ/FBI. Otherwise, all you have is a conspiracy theory.
There are existing facts that point in the direction that Trump may have broken the law. The National Archives has already confirmed that the first set of 15 boxes returned in early February contained classified documents.
While we don’t know exactly what they were looking for, we do know that Trump has an earned reputation for improperly bringing federal documents back to his residence. Without evidence of DOJ/FBI corruption, Trump is on the weaker foot here.
Since when do the people in power get the presumption of altruism?
Do you not know anything about the human condition or the founding of this country?
Yeah! Down with the cops! The pigs are corrupt! I love this. Soon we’re going to see BCD marching arm-in-arm with BLM. Remember Floyd! Save Trump! Murderers! Partisans! Defund the FBI!
As soon as I saw cops enforcing COVID restrictions on churches, moms and dads and people alone on beaches I realized ACAB.
So I’m with you, lets defund the fucking pigs. It serves two purposes, it increases my rural freedom and increases the hell of you dumbass city dwellers.
I love it when I see you people suffer consequences from your decisions and beliefs. Especially when that suffering is very very painful.
What you see on foxnews.com isn’t real. Literally photoshopped. The city dwellers are doing just fine.
I can believe that “the FBI and DOJ are acting in a politically corrupt manner, and abusing the system.” But I’m not going to take it on faith, as so many here seem to.
I mean, if Trump has done something wrong, which justifies this search, then how should DOJ and FBI act, other than obtaining a warrant and conducting the search? Why does that imply corrupt behavior?
Oh, I don’t know. Demanding that the security cameras be turned off ought to set off some alarm bells. Not to mention a night-time raid, which strikes me as more sending a message than caring about return of some documents.
What if Trump had said, No, I am not turning off the cameras?
Not to mention a night-time raid,
You should have stuck to not mentioning it, because there was no “night-time raid.” What are you talking about?
At least we can now, if we didn’t already, discount Bored Lawyer’s rantings as fact-free.
It was not at night and it wasn’t a raid.
It was a search with advance notice. Not a lot of advance notice, but there was advance notice. (Hence Trump attorneys’ request to be present, for example.)
But when the truth is so bad, I guess all they have left is lies and dishonest appeals to “transparency” that they know DOJ and FBI ethics guidelines and operating procedures prohibit (and for good reason, as demonstrated by the exception made for the Hillary Clinton case).
The Vegas odds are 1000:1 that there is a valid reason for the raid other than politics. I’m not biting
The bar for a “valid” reason is so low it’s absurd. Having a “valid” reason for the search is hardly proof that it wasn’t politically motivated, when they’re NOT conducting such searches in so many cases where they have equally valid reasons.
You just set up a situation where everybody can be gone after, and then just refrain from going after the people you’re not interested in harassing.
Do you know what the reasons were? Please enlighten us.
If the FBI have questions to answer, it’s why exactly have they been so hands-off when it comes to Trump. All the shit he’s done and they stay mostly at arm’s length except when they absolutely have to, and they still don’t actually stop him from doing any of the shit he does. Bet no charges come from this, no matter what was in the boxes.
It is forgotten that every former President still has a “security clearance”. I’ve been to a few Presidential libraries and every one of them had a classified materials section. As long as security was maintained on the documents, no law was broken by Trump. Verification of security is one of the duties of his Secret Service detail. I would be interested to see if the FBI agents who conducted the search had the proper clearance level for the documents that they expected to find. Personally I’m leaning towards the FBI planting evidence theory.
Personally I’m leaning towards the FBI planting evidence theory.
Cultist defends cult leader.
Big fucking surprise.
Narrator: in fact, Trump does not have a security clearance.
Jimc, Presidents don’t have a formal “security clearance” even when in office. They are eligible for access to highly sensitive material because that access is implied by the office, not because they were vetted through the customary background checks and received a clearance. How much access he retains after leaving office is generally up to the new President – it has been common practice to give ex-Presidents intelligence briefings, but that is a custom not a right.
Planting listening devices (or retrieving listening devices they planted before) would be another good reason to “search” in secret.
It would also explain where they got so-called “inside” info.
Turnip can release the warrant and the receipt listing every document taken and then we will all know whether the search was tyranny, Tyranny XL, or Super Duper Double Dutch Tyranny.
Strange he hasn’t done that yet…
So it is no longer sealed?
Cripes, you don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about. Won’t stop you though.
When the fbi left Mal da Lardo they left behind a copy of the warrant listing where they were searching and what they were searching for and a receipt itemizing every document taken. Neither document is, was, or will be “sealed” and Turnip can release them at any time. But he hasn’t for some reason…
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, why hasn’t there been any effort by the always curious media to publish the information contained in the warrant?
Ffs, because Turnip has not released them. They will gladly pore over it all if he releases them. Which likely answers why he hasn’t. That and the reasonable supposition that he’s in real seriously deep shit.
It’s reported the FBI in fact did no such thing. No copy of the what was taken was provided.
No, it isn’t.
Give Billy a break, David. It probably is “reported” by OAN or some other Trumpist liars.
It was reported by Billy himself.
I’m sure that Judge Reinhart did nothing more than rubber stamp the request made of him by Merrick Garfinkel.
Info on gender-affirming hysterectomies, from Boston Children’s Hospital.
Makes sense to me (although I would hope that the patient reaches adulthood first). Why would a transgender man want to become pregnant?
And, more importantly, why would a transgender man want to risk having their symptoms of ovarian cancer overlooked?
Long long ago, on the Phil Donahue show, and I mean like early 80s, not his brief resurgence, he had transexuals on. One was f2m, who had had a baby. He described the process angrily as “gross!” I had a baby and it was gross because I a really a male and that was gross.
All I could think at the time, and I was in my teens, was that this person had problems. I was a man, and if I had a baby, it would be weird I suppose, but most certainly not gross-qua-being-a-man.
I don’t even know where to begin with that one.
Given his obvious lack of empathy, can anything you say have an impact on his position?
Probably not, hence my desperation.
Good thing they weren’t a man or a male.
“Makes sense to me (although I would hope that the patient reaches adulthood first).”
One of the main problems, as with other forms of FGM, is that they do it to children (Boston Children’s Hospital). And a hysterectomy is much more intrusive than procedures like female circumcision.
But of course nowadays many young adult recipients have been groomed since they were children into thinking that such mutilation will solve all their emotional problems and are heartbroken to find out that that’s not the case.
Three seconds on Google leads to: Boston Children’s Hospital has a program on Adult Congenital Heart issues. They treat adults too.
But hey, when have facts ever gotten in the way of homophobia?
I’m sure you can find a remedial anatomy class to attend somewhere.
Oh no, TiP went off on some assumption that makes culture war stuff look a lot worst than it is.
What an unexpected turn of events.
They should be defunded.
Last week it was disclosed that the FBI intervened in the 2020 presidential election in a way that Russia could only dream of.
When Senators Grassley and Johnson were investigating Hunter Biden’s finances in August 2020, the FBI not only attempted but succeeded in undercutting their investigation and preventing it from being widely released.
Obviously Grassley and Johnson’s investigation was partisan, but that is no excuse for the FBI to jump in to stop it for equally partisan reasons. An FBI agent wrote a memo, with no basis, stating that the Hunter Biden Laptop trove was Russian disinformation. Then the FBI gave an unsolicited briefing to Grassley and Johnson telling them about the determination that Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation. Of course the next step then was to leak the briefing to Democratic Senators who then went out and told the press ‘The FBI told them they are spreading Russian disinformation, and they are spreading it anyway’.
That’s clearly intentional FBI interference in the election, and there needs to be consequences.
I do have a solution to propose: in any high profile politically sensitive investigation that involves any presidential candidate or likely potential candidate, any presidential campaign, or any immediate member of the candidates family, then the FBI investigates with two teams, a red team and a blue team each have full investigative authority but can’t communicate or have access to internal memos.
The DOJ of course would have access to both teams work and conclusions, and after the investigation the IG would examine both teams reports for missed and fabricated evidence.
Plus there would be a select congressional committee the chairman and ranking member of the senate and house judiciary committee and senior staff to be briefed and with access to the internal investigation documents.
Just look at the investigations we know about in the last 5 years that have been highly controversial and enormous suspicion of political bias and motivations:
The Hillary email investigation RussiaGate The Whitmer Kidnapping Hunter’s Laptop Jan 6. The Trump Classified Documents
I don’t think anyone claims the FBI handled any or all of those without fear or favor, and even if they it would not be too much of expense to have two fire walled teams working on it to keep both teams honest.
Sounds like you just want to politicize the FBI more and officially.
I hope that derangement proves temporary. The stress of defending Trump has pushed a lot of folks over the edge, but perhaps at least some can recover.
Your obvious, extreme, and salient error is that you abandoned the notion of justice in favor of an attempt to politicize law enforcement. You may not be insane, but your proposal is insane. Get a grip.
Stevie. See you next Tuesday.
a red team and a blue team
Most of America is not this partisanized; don’t assume Internet political forums are the world.
Red team/Blue team is not a partisan characterization, it’s well known from military exercises.
It’s also common in cyber security exercises.
However I will admit it’s probably inapt, because in the military context it does mean an attacking and a defending team.
My actual point was to have two completely independent investigative teams.
The point to that is fabrications like Clinesmith’s or “lost” 302’s used for perjury indictments like the Flynn case, or inappropriate grants of immunity like in the Hillary case, or intentionally erroneous conclusions like Hunter’s was disinfo would all be much harder to get away with.
The intent is not to make the investigations more partisan but less partisan.
I know the exercises. I use them for policy decision presentations all the time. I also know that it would become partisan in a heartbeat, and I think you do as well.
Your evidence of abuses is a pretty one-sided take. Another sign of how this would go.
There were no lost 302s in the Flynn case. (Nor “lost” 302s.) None. It was just a fabrication by MAGA loons (Sidney Powell, in this case). They had the handwritten notes, they had the draft 302s, they had the final ones. All materially identical, and no evidence any other documents ever existed.
The original 302 was either missing or never existed, a 302 providing an FBI agents recollection of an interview should not be 7 months old:
“There are many peculiarities about this. Pressing at the moment, for example, is the special counsel’s release yesterday of the FBI report (the “302” form) pertaining to Flynn’s interview. Media reports had said that even though Flynn was interviewed on January 24, 2017, the 302 documenting the interview was not completed until August 22, 2017, seven months later. Clearly, this raises the possibility that the interview report was drafted not when the agents formed their initial impressions, but months later when the special counsel was squeezing Flynn and there was a motive to make the interview appear more deceptive than it seemed at the time.
To my eye, the situation is even more disturbing than the press reporting suggests. It appears that there is no 302 of the Flynn interview. The 302 dated August 22, 2017, which Mueller submitted to the court, documents an interview of Peter Strzok, not of Flynn. It appears that this interview of Strzok took place on July 19, notes of the interview were drafted the next day (July 20), and the 302 was approved and entered into the FBI’s files on August 22. The question obviously arises: Where is the Flynn 302? FBI procedures would have called for a report within a few days of the interview. It is not that there wasn’t one for seven months. For now, it looks like none has been produced at all.”https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/where-is-the-flynn-302
Now I will note, so you don’t complain about it, Andrew McCarthy is a partisan source, but he is also a former federal prosecutor so he knows more about 302’s and how they work and following the case filings than 99% of other observers.
It wasn’t seven months old. McCarthy was writing based on “media reports,” not facts. Yes, there was a 302 from an interview of Strzok in August, but that was (as I said) an interview of Strzok. The interview of Flynn produced a 302 of the Flynn interview. The Flynn 302 was not 7 months old. It was 22 days old. Flynn was interviewed on January 24, 2017. The 302 was finalized and submitted on February 15, 2017.
You can see a copy of that 302 here:
By the way, do you believe that the entire Mueller team “accidentally” wiped their phones, some of them multiple times? Or were they lying?
All materially identical, and no evidence any other documents ever existed.
Sure, given an infinitely flexible definition of “evidence.”Once more from McCarthy after the dust had settled:
The Flynn 302 went through multiple drafts, and the FBI has not produced the earliest iterations. If agents are just faithfully rendering a witness’s account, that should never call for heavy editing. Yet, the Flynn 302 was still being edited on Feb. 10, 17 days after the interview. And, we know from text messages, it was being edited by Lisa Page, then an FBI lawyer working as counsel to then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Page was neither an agent nor present at the Flynn interview; she had no business editing what Flynn said. In the contemporaneous texts, Page lambasts Strzok for so shoddy a rendition; Strzok says Page should have seen how bad was the version Pientka gave him, which Strzok labored mightily to fix before passing it along to Page. Strzok also planned to make final edits after Page was done. The 302, which apparently also was reviewed by even higher-ranking officials, was not finalized until Feb. 15. In weirdness that signaled trouble, the FBI refused to disclose the 302 to Flynn’s defense. When pressed by the court, the FBI eventually produced a 302, not of Flynn’s interview, but of Strzok’s “exit interview” — when he was being terminated — which purported to summarize Flynn’s interview. This raised more questions. Finally, the FBI produced not one but two Flynn 302s: the first labeled a “deliberative” document (clearly, because Flynn’s statements were extensively edited); the second generated later, when the FBI realized it had mistakenly left the “deliberative” label on the first. (The two 302s are the same, except for the label.) Again, the texts elucidate that there must be earlier versions — Pientka’s first draft, Strzok’s alterations of it, Page’s alterations of Strzok’s draft, etc. These versions have never been disclosed, and who knows whether they still exist?
The Flynn 302 went through multiple drafts, and the FBI has not produced the earliest iterations. If agents are just faithfully rendering a witness’s account, that should never call for heavy editing. Yet, the Flynn 302 was still being edited on Feb. 10, 17 days after the interview. And, we know from text messages, it was being edited by Lisa Page, then an FBI lawyer working as counsel to then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Page was neither an agent nor present at the Flynn interview; she had no business editing what Flynn said. In the contemporaneous texts, Page lambasts Strzok for so shoddy a rendition; Strzok says Page should have seen how bad was the version Pientka gave him, which Strzok labored mightily to fix before passing it along to Page. Strzok also planned to make final edits after Page was done. The 302, which apparently also was reviewed by even higher-ranking officials, was not finalized until Feb. 15.
In weirdness that signaled trouble, the FBI refused to disclose the 302 to Flynn’s defense. When pressed by the court, the FBI eventually produced a 302, not of Flynn’s interview, but of Strzok’s “exit interview” — when he was being terminated — which purported to summarize Flynn’s interview. This raised more questions. Finally, the FBI produced not one but two Flynn 302s: the first labeled a “deliberative” document (clearly, because Flynn’s statements were extensively edited); the second generated later, when the FBI realized it had mistakenly left the “deliberative” label on the first. (The two 302s are the same, except for the label.)
Again, the texts elucidate that there must be earlier versions — Pientka’s first draft, Strzok’s alterations of it, Page’s alterations of Strzok’s draft, etc. These versions have never been disclosed, and who knows whether they still exist?
Yeah, McCarthy is still full of it. In addition to the 302, we have the underlying handwritten notes that were made during the interview. There are no substantive changes between those notes and the 302s.
For the conspiracy theory to hold water, Strzok/Pientka would have had to have written down ABC during the interview, prepared a first draft of a 302 that said DEF, and then when they filed the 302 changed it back to ABC. Which is obviously nonsensical.
There are no substantive changes between those notes and the 302s.
1. Whose notes? The first set the government swore was Strzok’s for the first year and half, or the other set they swore was Pientka’s for the first year and a half but changed their mind and said it was Strzok’s after they got painted into a corner?
2. Know of anywhere the “no substantive changes” bit is written up for our elucidation, other than the government’s conclusory statements in briefing followed by citations to huge page ranges?
1. Both notes. Stop with your bullshit. They produced both sets of notes, and just accidentally labeled file #1 as Strzok notes and file #2 as Pientka notes, when the reverse was correct. A clerical error of no significance whatsoever.
2. Yes. First, you can see the notes themselves; they were filed in the Flynn case, with a small amount of redactions. Second, that was the repeated finding of the court after reviewing the documents, not “the government’s conclusory statements in briefing.” (And all of these documents are short; there are no “huge page ranges.”)
So just “go fish” and not written up at all. As I suspected. Thanks for playing.
What the hell are you talking about? You asked if we had anything besides the government’s conclusory statements. I said yes: we have the underlying documents that we can review ourselves, and we also have the court’s findings on the subject.
If the court walked through them side by side and explains why they’re substantively the same, I’m all ears. Case and dkt #, please.
If the court order basically just says “they were substantially the same,” you can cut the breathless appeal to authority crap. Historically you’ve shown yourself eminently capable of questioning judges you don’t agree with.
If the court walked through them side by side and explains why they’re substantively the same,
When a judge says that “So-and-so’s fingerprints were found on the knife,” do you expect the judge to include a copy of the suspect’s fingerprints in his opinion next to a copy of the fingerprints found on the knife, and then identify the points of comparison for you? If you do, you are unfamiliar with how courts work. If you don’t, you’re just spewing bullshit for the sake of spewing bullshit.
If the court order basically just says “they were substantially the same,” you can cut the breathless appeal to authority crap. Historically you’ve shown yourself eminently capable of questioning judges you don’t agree with.
Sigh. For the third time: the documents are public. You can look at them yourself if you want to pretend not to believe the judge.
The docket # is 17-cr-232, in the DCD. (The case, obviously, is U.S. v. Flynn.)
When a judge says that “So-and-so’s fingerprints were found on the knife,”
This ain’t a situation where a judge has to rely on the opinion of an expert using some sort of esoteric education and training, bucko — they’re words on a page that the judge is perfectly capable of evaluating and explaining (or at least adopting specific findings of fact spoon-fed by the attorneys). I know you know this. Stop playing stupid rather than just admitting you got stuck with your hand in the cookie jar with your “judge SAID, derp!” routine.
For the third time: the documents are public. You can look at them yourself
I’ve seen the pages of chickenscratch, thanks. Thus my (very polite, I thought) request for the decoding key the judge purported to use. Thanks for confirming you’re just blowing smoke out your ass.
I’ve seen the pages of chickenscratch, thanks.
Uh huh. Sure you have. That’s why you didn’t even know which case we were talking about.
I mean… a red and blue team? What if the Libertarian candidate is the one being investigated?
I seldom like ideas that give power to parties.
Oh come on. Any serious 3rd party candidate that’s a threat to the Uniparty would’ve already been investigated and crushed.
Then they’re own their own. That should appeal to a Libertarian. “live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall” and all that.
There isn’t a single Federal at the FBI or DOJ that’s redeemable.
You can’t trust them to do anything remotely right. They are all subhuman evil filth.
Seriously? You’ll have two blue teams, or two red teams, depending on who’s being investigated. You can’t get honest work out of an already corrupt organization.
Yes. It’s almost as if consistently politicising every part of the Federal government for decades was a bad idea.
It’s the Republicans fault the Federal Government is so heavily Democratic partisan today!
Well, it is, in the sense that they played the Washington Generals to the Democrats’ Globetrotters for too long, and gladly.
It’s the Republican fantasy when one of their own gets held accountable.
I’m can’t think of the two red teams example you speak of. Plenty of two blue teams examples though.
Here’s a different idea.
1. Break up the FBI into separate components. 2. Move the components to different states. 3. Move the DOJ to a different state.
I love the idea that there was something so significant about the Hunter Biden thing that only Fed intervention prevented it from blowing up, when, Russian or not, it was a ratfucking op so obvious and clumsy and transparent it might as well have been rat pronography projected onto Times Square.
Nige : “I love the idea that there was something so significant about the Hunter Biden thing that only Fed intervention prevented it from blowing up….”
I love the fact that the NY Post & Rudi Giuliani – both of whom couldn’t despise a Biden more (Hunter or Joe) both had the complete laptop hard drive but never produced zilch. Take the sum scandalettes found on the computer, and then add all the additional “scandals” from H.B.’s disgruntled former partner: What do you get?
1. Hunter once used drugs. 2. Hunter got a biz associate a handshake with daddy. 3. Joe wasn’t completely ignorant about his son’s business. 4. Hunter talked about cutting his dad in on a deal.
The last was after Joe was a private citizen again, and the deal went nowhere anyway. A few months back someone discovered the SCOOP that Hunter payed a few thousand for a house repair for his father during the Obama Administration. That’s what scrapping the laptop for anything (and I mean anything) gets you. So forget all of Kazinski’s hysterical gibberish above; if the H-Biden laptop contained any real dirt, Rudi and the NY Post would have put it out at the time (fishy smell notwithstanding).
But it didn’t, did it?
There is an ongoing criminal investigation of Hunter, which isn’t being leaked because it’s Biden.
But don’t take my word for it, here is Brian Stelter:
“What about his son? What about Hunter? Hunter under federal investigation, charges could be coming at any time, this is not just a right-wing media story. This is a real problem for the Biden’s.”
Or maybe because leaks are the exception not the rule. I am not a fan of the FBI and it’s tactics, but they don’t leak a lot.
Kazinski : “There is an ongoing criminal investigation of Hunter, which isn’t being leaked because it’s Biden”
That’s looks like ahistorical projection to me. Wanna know another criminal investigation that didn’t leak? Mueller’s. The man ran a pretty tight ship, wrapped-up his investigation extraordinarily fast for its scope, and was the epitome of conservative judiciousness in his findings. So was he a hack for Trump?
You need only compare Mueller to the clown Durham for contrast. The latter is already running half-again longer and absolutely loves playing bullshit games in the press. Of course in the select category of Special Counsel Investigation hackery, no one has ever been as corrupt as Kavanaugh. He treated his office, its responsibilities, and the law itself with absolute contempt while running the Vince Foster farce.
So it depends on the ethical weight of the people involved. As for Hunter, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s hit-up to pay some back taxes, as the man has led a very messy life. But I’m afraid you’re gonna be very disappointed if you look for more than that. Evil conspiracies & Bond Villainy seem to be beyond the reach of little Hunter Biden.
What’s the investigation of, who stole some of his emails and put them on a laptop?
Putin is like “that’s how you do it” and then when some folks don’t swallow the propaganda you arrest them.
…and here I thought it was Wednesday. Is VC using a secret calendar with an anti-leap day?
A town I used to live in mailed residents a calendar with September 31.
September now identifies as a day with 31 days. What are you, a calendarist?
A New Yorker cartoon from years ago. The sketch shows two recognizably pre-Columbian meso-Americans. One is busily chipping away, sculpting the face of a giant stone disk, its surface now all but covered in figures, with maybe 10% left to be completed. It is the famous Aztec calendar in creation. The other figure, a passer-by, stops to say, “No, no, 30 days hath September.“
Must have been the date for the school budget election.
CLAIM: Committee Chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) claimed they[J6 patriots] were “savagely beating and killing law enforcement officers,” FACT: No police officer was killed during the riot. CLAIM: Committee member Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) faulted Trump for his “glaring silence” about the “tragic death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who succumbed to his injuries” FACT: The D.C. medical examiner ruled Sicknick died of “natural causes,” not injuries, well after the riot. CLAIM: Thompson asserted Trump “summoned” a mob that was “heavily armed and angry.” FACT: Not a single gun was recovered in the riot. CLAIM: The committee put a former far-right extremist on as a witness to testify that rioters built “a gallows” FACT: The witness, Jason Van Tatenhove, wasn’t at the Capitol that day. CLAIM: Committee Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) proclaimed that the panel had evidence Trump said Pence “deserves” to be hanged, FACT: Her “evidence” turned out to be a secondhand retelling by witness Cassidy Hutchinson who overheard a paraphrasing of what Trump may have thought about the chants CLAIM: Hutchinson also swore she wrote a note dictated by then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows FACT: Former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann insisted that he actually wrote the note, not Hutchinson, CLAIM: Based on Hutchinson’s testimony, the committee also claimed that former White House counsel Pat Cipollone said Trump’s plan to march to the Capitol would cause Trump officials to be “charged with every crime imaginable.” FACT: Cipollone didn’t corroborate the claim in his sworn deposition before the committee. CLAIM: The committee relied on another second-hand account by Hutchinson to broadcast to the world the alleged bombshell that Trump tried to physically commandeer his Secret Service limo to the Capitol. FACT: Trump rode in a different motorcade vehicle than “The Beast” that day CLAIM: Throughout the hearings, the committee cited Trump’s speech at the Ellipse as the spark that ignited the riot. FACT: While Trump did urge supporters to “walk” with him down to the Capitol after the rally, he specifically asked them to do so “peacefully.” CLAIM: In the opening hearing, Cheney read out loud a tweet Trump sent during the riot in which he said, “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.” She claimed Trump was justifying more violence. FACT: But Cheney cut off the next line where Trump called for “peace” and told supporters to leave the Capitol. “Go home with love & in peace,”
Paraphrased from Sperry
How’s handing out kool-aid the day after the Jonestown massacre working for you? Getting a lot of takers?
Ad hom’s are for losers.
Kool-Aid (pedantry: it was Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid) implies that BCD believes the things he’s saying. He doesn’t.
You don’t think I believe those aren’t real claims made by J6 Committee members and those aren’t the real facts rebutting them?
No. I think you’re a dishonest troll who doesn’t believe a word you say.
A fair point, but I think the likes of BCD are mostly the far right’s useful idiots. He isn’t bright enough to be trolling, let alone a paid stooge.
If he believes everything he’s fed, does he believe anything, in any meaningful sense?
How do you define a woman?
Same tactic used post Charlottesville. Joey B launched his campaign on the hoax.
Just more of the same. Like a replay of the impeachment nonsense.
That’s all you got? Even if those were all true (they’re not), they amount to very little. You’re disputing a couple of word choices around the edges. Pointing out places where two witnesses were asked different questions? That’s pretty desperate and meaningless. None of those points undermine the Jan 6 committee in any serious way.
In your eyes, what would?
Oh let’s see… some examples could be falsifying evidence, drawing unsupported conclusions, or peddling suggestion and innuendo.
You mean like those things I showed you they did.
Nope. None of your examples qualify as any of those things. Try again!
People who haven’t been raided by the Democrats: Hillary Clinton Hunter Biden Any of Epstein’s clients Ray Epps John & Tony Podesta Pekins Coie Marc Elias Andrew McCabe Larry Nassar DC Pipe Bomber Awan Brothers Antifa BLM Sandy Berger Bill Clinton Contractors illegally using NSA database Eric Swalwell or FangFang Diana Feinstein or her 20 year Chinese Spy
People who have been raided by the Democrats: Randy Weaver President Trump Roger Stone Micheal Flynn Nanna and Pawpaw Uncle George Cousin Sarah
Oh and: Project Veritas Hunter’s Laptop Repairman
And: The people responsible for COVID
OK, I’ll bite on the “Contractors illegally using NSA database” thing.
What’s that about?
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/fbi-nsa-mass-surveillance-abuse/ It was contractors accessing it. Note the repercussions. None.
The Democrats haven’t raided anyone.
Ha ha it’s like saying the communists didn’t do this or that. Correction Putin. Oh big difference!
It’s “the Party”
No, it’s not.
Except there are no exceptions to the rule. Until you can find one yes it is.
The Democrats haven’t raided anyone. I know you live in a fantasy world where Trump is some kind of saviour and above mere earthly law, and the evil Democrats are trying to take him to the mountain, but it is a fantasy.
So is Merrick Garland a democrat appointee? Does he work for Joe Biden a Democrat.
Sleep it off and come back tomorrow.
Joe Biden has had nothing to do with it, nor have the Democrats. Trump refused to return some documents, the feds went and took them back. Nobody’s even disputing that.
Remember, most of the people who investigated Trump and cronies were appointed by Republicans, and lead to him getting impeached twice and a bunch of his associates and administration getting indicted.
Don’t waste your breath. Republicans have spent so much time politicising everything that they can’t imagine the possibility that some part of the Federal government might just be doing its job without political motives.
Name a contrary example or maybe stay quiet. Name a Democratic operative who was raided for improper handling of classified information. There are many.
If you can’t name a singe counter example you are wrong.
Name a Democratic operative who refused to return sensitive White House documents, holding onto them for two years after leaving office.
Hillary, she wiped them clean
Emails, not documents, only classified in retrospect, and she handed the server over voluatrily.
So emails aren’t considered documents?
Sure, if you like, but unless she printed them off and put them in a box I don’t know what waiting two years then executing a search warrant would accomplish, except to satisfy your straining for arbitrary equivalences to in order claim victimisation.
No, many of them were classified at the time. Remember her absurd claim that she didn’t know what (C) on a document had meant?
No, I don’t remember any of that, you guys make up so much shit about what was, at the time, the worse crime ever committed. Still not sure what waiting for two years then executing a search warrant would acheive.
Nige, As SoS, she was a primary classification authority with regard to any and all State Dept matters. Your “in retrospect” does not really cut it it. She should have know; that was in her job description.
Should have known what, that the Republicans would mount a godalmighty blustering screaming hatefest over it? That they’d go back to it like a dog to its own vomit when their own walking security risk retained documents he shouldn’t have and the feds had to visit and they want to act like it’s the end of the Republic?
Well, then, if that were true it would be pretty pointless to conduct a “raid,” wouldn’t it?
LOL. Partisan logic is a wonder to behold.
I guess the raid would be useful if you were out of budget for the year and you need some blank discs.
Sandy Berger, he transported them in his pants, seriously dude!
Ok, you think the Feds whould have waited two years then executed a warrant to search his pants while he wasn’t wearing them?
No, because beside stealing documents from the National Archives, Berger actually destroyed them and they were supposedly the only copies.
So they should have waited two years then executed a search warrant on, what, his ash tray? His shredder? His toilet, pace Trump?
Berger actually destroyed them and they were supposedly the only copies.
You got a source for that claim? Because looks to be bullshit.
Berger actually destroyed them and they were supposedly the only copies. You got a source for that claim? Because looks to be bullshit.
No, that’s the case. Start with his wikipedia entry and go from there. But I have no idea what this is supposed to prove.
God, you are shameless.
Berger pleads guilty to taking classified info Sandy Berger, who was President Clinton’s top national security aide, pleaded guilty Friday to taking classified documents from the National Archives and cutting them up with scissors.
By “copies”, you must understand, they were not identical. They each had hand written notes on them.
Still not sure what waiting two years then raiding his pants would acheive, since the petulant whining here is that he was treated differently from Trump when they should have been able to look forward in time and see what happened to Trump then do exactly the same thing to him regardless of the actual facts of the case to appease the idiots who can’t even defend him directly but have to flail their arms around with rubbish like this.
It was the notes he was apparently out to get rid of. A pity they didn’t have the sense to photographically archive everything.
Brett Bellmore : No, many of them were classified at the time. Remember her absurd claim that she didn’t know what (C) on a document had meant?
(1) Sorry, but there weren’t “many” classified at the time – only three. Those were the ones with with the little “C”s
(2) Those tiny letters were spread out in text of messages dozens of pages long, only appearing next to a few sentences.
(3) That’s an improper & inadequate method of signifying “classified”. There was no classification header, footer or introductory mark. Even Comey in his high-righteous hectoring mode (which both Right and Left experienced) said the little “C” texts weren’t properly marked.
(4) And here’s the ultimate irony : Clinton was pilloried because messages she thought unclassified were later re-judged to be classified. To be more precise : Messages sent to her which OTHER people thought unclassified were subsequently re-rated higher, since that describes over 99.99% of the cases. But in this case of three emails (improperly) marked, the exact opposite happened. Two of the messages were re-rated as unclassified.
One of them shows the Kafkaesque business of security rating. Joyce Banda of Malawi became president after her predecessor had a heart attack. Clinton received a briefing email before making a formal call to President Banda. One of its sentences said (roughly) this: “purpose of call: to offer condolences and congratulate the new president”. That was classified. It was one of the sentences with a little “C”.
Er, without endorsing any of the Trumpian treason above, your point 4 is nonsense. Hillary was pilloried because running a private email system and using it for official business is a career-ending mistake. It has been for other politicians caught doing it.
The possibility of “messages she thought unclassified were later re-judged to be classified” is merely one reason why it displayed a staggering lack of judgement.
As bad as Trump was, it’s head-in-the-sand denial to pretend that Hillary wasn’t a truly dreadful candidate who displayed utter contempt for the electorate in every facet of her behaviour, of which this story is an excellent example – after it broke, she should have retired. She was genuinely such a bad candidate she could lose to Trump, and the Democrats have never confronted the huge mistake they made presenting the country with a choice between her and Trump when any other candidate would have won.
Davedave : Nope; your point is highly exaggerated. Colin Powell did large amounts of State Department business on his AOL account and no one cared. Condoleezza Rice apparently didn’t do email (bless her Luddite heart), but channeled everything thru her aides. They did large amounts of government business on private email and no one cared. Both of Clinton’s predecessors also had email traffic later upgraded to classified status, which meant their original handling of those messages was improper (retroactively).
No one cared. Now, I’ll happily agreed the server was a poor decision, but (a) using private email wasn’t illegal, (b) it was common then & is still common now, and (c) wouldn’t have changed a single fact about the classification business anyway, since using normal State Department email would have been just as (retroactively) improper.
Any other pol would have been singed with a week or two of scathing coverage and that would have been it. Powell and Rice got even less. But because it was Hillary we’re still hearing “treason” and “she should have gone to jail” and “career ending mistake” – all of which is hypocritical bullshit to the highest degree. Comey gave the election to Trump by “reopening” an investigation he knew was going nowhere. Nobody not-named-Hillary has ever been charged for anything close to her actions, so why should she? But it was Clinton, so he indulged.
People like their self-indulgences re her, don’t they?
And lets not forget the Trump’s and their multiple electronic devices.
This is all very silly at this point.
Powell and Rice got even less.
To be fair, Powell and Rice didn’t run for office.
“Colin Powell did large amounts of State Department business on his AOL account and no one cared”
That would also be a career-ender, by modern standards. We’ve wised up to government officials doing this to evade the laws we’ve made to control them. Getting caught doing it is now a career-ending offence.
“we’re still hearing “treason” and “she should have gone to jail” and “career ending mistake””
Now you’re just being disingenuous. I’ve never said anything of the sort, indeed the precise opposite.
There is a huge difference between ‘treason’ – which you will note I accuse Trump of – and judgement so poor it ends a political career.
There is no doubt that Hillary displayed terrible judgment on many occasions, and when caught tried to brazen her way out of it instead of admitting the possibility that she wasn’t infallible. She was a dreadful candidate, who was widely perceived* as sneering at the ‘little people’ in a Leona Helmsley sort of way. That is why Trump won.
[*Let’s be honest, that perception is based on endless evidence.]
The Hillary camp need to admit they were duped by a terrible candidate, and try and work out how to prevent it happening again. Head in the sand denial just opens the door to another Trump.
The simple, obvious reality is that Hillary _knew_ at least a week prior to the election that she was definitely going to lose to Trump, and also knew that if she stepped down and a boring Democrat was inserted, the replacement candidate was a shoo-in. She _didn’t care_. She preferred extending her own time in the spotlight to stopping Trump.
That’s who you’re defending. A woman proven unequivocally to have lied about everything she claimed to be.
Um, nobody knew a week before the election that Hillary was going to lose to Trump, and also “stepping down” isn’t a thing.
Nice list. I’m stealing it
FBI political crimes division seized Pennsylvania Rep Scott Perry’s personal phone yesterday:
No need for watergate burglars: Dems have the FBI for that job.
The sentencing guidelines do a bad job in the January 6 cases. Leaving the tourist types aside, there is a huge range of responsibility among the remaining defendants. The guidelines for obstruction are based on some average case where you falsify evidence to deceive an official body. On January 6 there were people convicted of obstruction who were just being disorderly and others who were intending something much worse than falsification of evidence. Under the guidelines that range of conduct has to be squeezed into minor role, ordinary role, or leadership role. Except nobody gets a discount for playing a minor role in a major crime, even though almost everybody had a minor role in forcing Congress into hiding. It took a crowd to do that. It’s just bad people vs. slightly worse people, from the sentencing perspective.
I also think the law places far too much weight on presence of a gun or “dangerous weapon”.
Carr — Do you assert the unarmed perpetrators ought to be treated as harshly as the others, or are you selling the idea that bringing a gun to an attempted insurrection is no big deal?
They found no guns though.
They found no insurrection either. Stephen has a vivid imagination.
Carrying a gun around in a holster is no big deal. Like I think “sitting in Pelosi’s chair with a stun gun” is essentially the same crime as “sitting in Pelosi’s chair unarmed”. The law says the first is much worse.
Drawing the gun would be a big deal. The guidelines have separate rules for brandishing and discharge of guns.
The guidelines get very precise in the counting of guns. Reffitt, the prosecution said, deserved a couple extra guidelines points because there were three guns in town instead of two. Precise, but not accurate. He only brought one gun to the Capitol.
Congress is within its rights to ask visitors to check their guns at the door. Demand, even. But simple possession of a gun is no big deal.
Carr — Perhaps norms where you live differ from those I am accustomed to. Here in the densely-populated part of the Northeast, not many would agree with you about, “no big deal,” for a holstered pistol at a mob attack on the Capitol. Nor would they be much inclined to indulge any argument insisting that disagreement means there is something wrong with them.
Here is my counter-suggestion: a federal law establishing a nationwide right of peaceable assembly—specifically defining “peaceable,” to mean no firearms present. Perhaps the rule should extend to body armor and other arms as well. Absent that, there will be no means to prevent political assembly devolving into contests of armed intimidation among competing factions.
That has not been needed previously. Given Bruen, it will clearly be needed shortly. I would be amenable to listen to an argument that the law should be adjusted for differing norms, state by state.
Counter-counter proposal: states – or even entire regions of states – that have a “norm” of repeatedly losing federal cases for violating constitutional rights should be placed under a federal pre-clearance regime with an initial term of 20 years, *automatically* renewed for additional terms of 20 years unless there is a Congressional or Supreme Court finding that the attitudes of officials and the electorate have fundamentally changed.
There is precedent for this in the VRA.
ducksalad — How do you untangle the constitutional knot you just tied? Peaceable assembly is a constitutional 1A right. The 2A is a constitutional right. If bringing guns to political assemblies in fact burdens by intimidation the political assemblies, two rights are in conflict. Nothing about your proposal seems to acknowledge the problem. You seem to want the 2A elevated over everything else, without any principle to explain why. I proposed a means to give appropriate scope to both rights. What can you propose?
“two rights are in conflict”
Well, I agree that someone with a gun can try to intimidate you. However, constitutional rights are not in conflict here because the 1st Amendment says the government may not try to chill your speech. Unless you were talking about banning the police, and only the police, from bringing guns to a protest.
We already have plentiful laws against private intimidation. No need at all for new ones.
The government is surely empowered to protect the right of peaceable assembly by law. On what theory do you suppose a court could strike down such a law?
On the theory that it violates the Second Amendment.
The government is not “empowered” to redefine words to fit Stephen Lathrop’s idiosyncrasies.
Nieporent, all the law needs to do is get the case into court. Then the court can decide whether interpreting the 2A to privilege gun carrying at political events too much burdens by intimidation the right of peaceable assembly. I get that the current Supreme Court probably would not do that. It is not a wise court.
Putting the law aside, do you think it wise to allow carriage of firearms at all political gatherings? Can you imagine any harm to the public life of the nation which might result if every liberal protest gathering found itself surrounded by a, “security detail,” of right-wing militia members, armed to the teeth? Would it be better or worse if the liberals responded by bringing guns of their own?
How about national party conventions? Would you privilege them with a higher level of gun security than afforded to ordinary street gatherings? Or do you think it would advance the cause of American liberty if the streets around the next Democratic National Convention were mobbed with fully-armed militia members?
Are you arguing for overturning the Shelby County decision? I could go for that. . . .
IIRC the Shelby decision was (basically) that VRA pre-clearance is fine but after decades had to be based on some ongoing finding. Which is why I’d let New York make their case – after say 20 years – that they’d changed their ways.
Carrying a gun around in a holster is no big deal.
Nonsense. In the middle of a riot it is a big deal. It creates a heightened threat, and risk of violence or death.
I guess everyone has abandoned the “they were unarmed” argument.
“Nonsense. In the middle of a riot it is a big deal.”
It apparently wasn’t a big deal when Gaige Grosskreutz did it. No charges.
I have no idea who the fuck Gaige Grosskreutz is, or whatever he or she did is relevant.
In your hypothetical riot, you’re concerned about a holstered gun carrying an alleged risk of violence?
When carried by a rioter.
Rioters are not, during the riot, the most calm, controlled, rational people around.
On the insurrection angle, nobody has been sentenced for “insurrection” or “seditious conspiracy”.
Are you being pedantic, or are you disputing that anyone’s even been charged with such, because at least two have already pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy charges and are awaiting sentencing.
I started by observing that attempting to shoehorn a wide range of conduct into a narrow guideline results in a failure to account for the severity of individual conduct. I specifically wrote “sentenced”, not “charged” because I am commenting on sentences rather than charges. The felony sentencing to date has not included seditious conspiracy.
I had not not read the seditious conspiracy plea agreement until just now. Since there is no guideline for seditious conspiracy the parties agreed to apply… obstruction. Unimaginative. But they did agree on more aggravating factors than previous cases. Maybe that’s an improvement from the point of view of avoiding unwarranted uniformity in sentencing. Maybe not. We’ll have to wait and see. The plea agreement for Joshua James (https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1479556/download) makes it possible that his sentence for seditious conspiracy will be the same as Reffitt’s for obstruction of justice while carrying but not using a gun.
Yes, how unreasonable of prosecutors and judges to get all snippy about people bringing/trying to bring a gun into Congress…
They found no guns at J6 though.
If I remember correctly, they did find one. On a guy who was leaving the Capitol grounds. While they were roughing him up. Purely by accident.
The LEO was shoving said guy around, and uses his “training and experience” to realize one of the things he shoved was a concealed handgun. Otherwise they would have had no clue the guy was armed.
…and is he among those who were arrested? I seem to remember seeing somewhere that he might have been undercover LEO and was let go.
This is asinine.
Guy reffitt admitted to having a pistol. I provided links to his sentencing memo last week where he admits as much.
Woah, 1 guy had a handgun and was on the steps?
“They found no guns at J6 though.”
Ok, so I was wrong. They found one.
Now go find out why the Capitol Police opened the doors and let them in, and then ponder why the J6 committee is curiously incurious about that.
Tell you what— why don’t YOU look into that and report back your findings
No thank you. I know why the Capitol Police opened the doors and it’s the same reason why the J6 committee isn’t asking about it.
Like many many other things, the “insurrection” was a Fed-op.
They had to look really hard though. I wonder how hard they looked at BLM/ANTIFA protestors?
So the folks who were just present are guilty of the worst offenders by being in the same vicinity? Lets apply that to BLM can we? But we don’t because it’s ridiculous except in this case apparently.
And if they let you in is it trespassing? If I let you in to my house take your picture and later call the police to arrest you for trespassing is it all good?
“Lets apply that to BLM can we?”
Woman sentenced over fire at St. Louis 7-Eleven amid protests by: Joey Schneider Posted: Aug 9, 2022 / 12:19 PM CDT Updated: Aug 9, 2022 / 12:20 PM CDT
“ST. LOUIS – A federal judge has sentenced a woman in connection with a fire at a St. Louis 7-Eleven location that stemmed from a 2020 protest.
Nautica Turner, 27, pleaded guilty in February to a felony charge of conspiracy to commit arson. On Tuesday, she was sentenced to two years and three months in federal prison.
Investigators say Turner plotted with others to damage or destroy the store, located at the intersection of N. 17th and Pine streets, on June 1, 2020. According to her indictment, Turner poured lighter fluid in the store, then ignited a box and threw the box inside the building. Someone else later set a fire that burned the store to the ground.”
Arson felony gets less time than Capitol riot misdemeanors.
Shaman guy got 43 months for sitting in Nancy’s chair and wearing a costume.
Turns out that trying to overthrow the government is worse than assaulting a convenience store.
They charge people who were trying to overthrow the government with misdemeanors?
You have to wonder what it is that the DOJ and FBI think Trump has that they want to retrieve so badly.
If someone tells me to send them the contents of a room, and I box it up and send it to them, then they contact me a couple of months latter and say “You didn’t send me everything”, the first thing I’m going to ask is “Well, tell me exactly what you think is missing?”.
What does Trump have that they want/need to have returned?
“What does Trump have that they want/need to have returned?”
A Trump lawyer disclosed that federal agents removed about a dozen boxes of materials during execution of the search warrant. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/09/fbi-dozen-boxes-mar-a-lago-trump-lawyer-00050730
The issuance of the search warrant evinces a finding of probable cause by a neutral and detached federal magistrate judge to believe that as of this past Friday, evidence of a crime was likely to be found on the subject premises.
Republicans spent the last 40 years politicising the judiciary in order to get Roe v. Wade repealed, so I don’t think you’re going to have much luck convincing a Trumpist that there is such an animal as a “neutral and detached federal magistrate judge”.
Why would a warrant on for a search of the home of an ex-President be handled by a magistrate judge and why aren’t news outlets clamoring for the sealed warrant to be released?
Because FBI agents know the “friendly” magistrates who won’t ask too many questions.
Defund the police!
Just get rid of the FBI. Unnecessary.
Because they don’t listen to Trump? Or is there something else that sets them apart from other LEOs?
No because they are the political arm of Biden and the Democrat party. Not needed. We didn’t have an FBI until 1908. So 100 years plus without it. Don’t need an SS.
Hey Dutch guy still waiting on your counter example. You know where a Democrat was raided for possessing classified information.
It’s not my fault that Democrats don’t commit crimes at anywhere near the same rate. It’s your fault for consistently backing criminals. It’s not like Trump didn’t brag about all the crimes he could/would commit. And you lot voted for him anyway. Trump getting in trouble with the police is the least surprising thing in the history of politics. Democrats resign even if the case that they did anything wrong is distinctly iffy.”
Hunter Biden in on video smoking crack and banging children.
Yeah let’s get rid of the FBI!
The Dems are no fans of over-funded federal law enforcement agencies with sticks up their asses.
It’s fun watching the Law & Order party give up on Law & Order.
Getting rid of the DOJ and FBI wouldn’t be giving up on Law and Order, it would be restoring it.
Ironically, mishandling classified evidence was a misdemeanor until Trump signed a law making it a felony:
Seems pretty unlikely anyone would get “raided” over a misdemeanor charge. Not really a partisan figure, but this is the exact charge that Petraeus pleaded guilty to (pre felony times)
“Seems pretty unlikely anyone would get “raided” over a misdemeanor charge.”
FBI agents have flown all over the country to raid the homes and businesses of Capitol riot defendants. Almost all misdemeanors, mostly just trespass.
Its the most the FBI has worked since chasing Dillinger.
Raided? I don’t know but legally penalized? John Deutsch.
I don’t suppose it matters that ‘banging children’ is a vile slur just casually tossed out by right wing slimeballs at their political enemies and even though we’re inured to them saying the stupidest, most horrible things as a matter of course, it’s not actually ok?
Also, Sandy Berger, Wwho literally stole classified documents from the National Archives
Why would a warrant on for a search of the home of an ex-President be handled by a magistrate judge
Because that is the type official designated to review search warrants under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41.
Why would a warrant on for a search of the home of an ex-President be handled by a magistrate judge
Who the fuck would you want to handle a search warrant other than the person whose job it is to handle search warrants?
and why aren’t news outlets clamoring for the sealed warrant to be released?
What sealed warrant? What are you talking about?
I have a very hard time convincing myself that “magistrate” judges should even be a thing.
I’m so old they used to be called “referees”.
Which is odd, because you find it remarkably easy to convince yourself of all sorts of other weird things.
As always, Brett is a living Dunning Kruger. He doesn’t have the foggiest idea how courts work, but he thinks he knows what the right way to staff them is.
Any other positions you want to eliminate? Secretary? Clerk? Courtroom deputy? Court reporter?
a finding of probable cause by a neutral and detached federal magistrate judge
lmao oh come on
not guilty Really Truly Believes magistrates never rubber-stamp warrants, that they always carefully review the adequacy of the affidavits supporting the warrant application, critically think about what the law enforcement agency might be leaving out or distorting, and are never snookered by people who fail in their duty of honesty and candor.
Also that you should invest in this fabulous real estate opportunity between New Jersey and New York City.
He probably believes FISA judges have a lot of integrity also.
I could not be happier seeing conservatives turn against the flimsy warrant process and the FISA court. Finally!
Of course they are not; this is special pleading.
“not guilty Really Truly Believes magistrates never rubber-stamp warrants”
He claims to be a retired criminal defense lawyer too!
His poor clients.
BravoCharlieDelta, do you claim that the magistrate judge was not neutral and detached? If so, on what facts do you base that claim? Please be specific.
They made a decision that Trump doesn’t like. What more does BCD need to know?
Just a few months ago, the Judge recused himself from a Trump case.
I wonder what changed since then?
Did you RWNJs ever consider the possibility that he recused himself because of one of the parties in that case other than Trump? (Trump sued an insane twenty-eight individuals. Any one of them could have been the reason for the recusal.)
Reinhart has public Facebook posts bashing Trump.
Yes, look how disparaging:
I generally ignore the President-elect’s tweets, but not this one. John Lewis arguably has done more to ‘make America great’ than any living citizen.”
“Last August, I took my son to the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma so he could understand the kind of courage and sacrifice required to live in a democratic society. John Lewis embodies that spirit,” he added. “Although I’ve never met him, he is one of my heroes.”
That’s some severe TDS there, amirite?
Weird how you J6 Committee’d his post.
Show the rest, then, if you think I left out some disparagement.
“Thank you, Robert Reich, for saying what many of us feel, ‘John Lewis is the conscience of America. Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis’s feet.‘
Odd bit you J6 Committee’d out, doncha think?
Judges have to deal fairly with people of low moral stature all the time, it’s probably fine.
I did actually miss that in the original coverage I had read. You’re right that the last paragraph is actually disparaging.
Actually I’m more interested in what docs did Turnip abscond with, especially those he withheld after the Archives collected 15 boxes, and why he kept them (I’m thinking, um-generously, “evidence, not souvenirs”). But I guess we’ll both arrive at the answer in time.
CindyF — FBI agents gave Trump an inventory of everything they took. Trump is at liberty to make that inventory public. Presumably, if the items are not incriminating, Trump will do that soon. Perhaps he will pick a few of the least controversial items, and list them for the public. That would reassure his fans.
Reading news accounts, the argument at this point seems to be that they were legally required to give him an inventory, therefore they must have done so, QED. I don’t find this entirely persuasive, though I suppose it makes a reasonable default assumption.
Not so fact SL. The title of classified documents or even their existence can be classified. So all you might get is “12 boxes of allegedly classified materials.”
If someone tells me to send them the contents of a room, and I box it up and send it to them, then they contact me a couple of months latter and say “You didn’t send me everything”, the first thing I’m going to ask is “Well, tell me exactly what you think is missing?”
And you’re claiming that’s the extent of the discussion between Trump and the National Archives? Got evidence, besides Trump’s claim that he was “cooperating?”
The first thing I’m going to say is, “I boxed up the entire room. There’s nothing left there.”
The 2024 Democratic President Primary options and odds
Let’s throw a few out there.
1. Biden. 1:1 odds -He’s old, he’s possible senile, he’s had a miserable first term….but he’s still President and that’s why he has 1:1 odds of winning the primary
2. Kamala Harris: 10:1 odds. -I’ll be honest, no one wants her to run. But on the off chance that Biden dies in office, then Harris will be President, and the default.
3. Gavin Newsom: 3:1 odds. -The Golden poster boy, he’s got the looks, he’s got the experience, he’s got the disregard for the little people. But…2024’s going to be a bad year to run. He may wait till 2028.
4. Liz Cheney: 30:1 odds. -The ultimate crossover candidate. Fresh off her loss in Wyoming, she goes full Democrat. Odds are she tries running in the GOP primary instead but her chances are better as a Democrat.
5. The field: 2:1 odds. -Someone not on this list. -Feel free to post your own options and odds.
I think you’re exaggerating Cheney’s odds; The Democrats will use her up and throw her away, they’re glad to accept help from turncoat Republicans, but they’re not stupid enough to actually adopt them into the party and trust them.
She might get one of those TV slots playing the Republican who reliably attacks other Republicans, but that’s about it once the voters have kicked her to the curb.
Probably. 50:1 or 100:1 might be better for Liz. On the other hand, if Democrats see no better option, she’s female (The first female president!) and has more crossover appeal. She’s likely bring in a decent number of old-school republicans to vote for her.
Oh, come on. If they were looking for cross-over votes, rather than just running with the wildest leftist they think they could win with, Cheney still wouldn’t be in the running. Aside from her irrational hostility towards Trump, she’s too conservative to even consider. TRUMP is more liberal than her!
The crossover vote candidate would be Gabbard. Better looking than Cheney, a lot more liberal, but still sane enough to bleed some votes off Trump. And it won’t be her, she’s too sane to get the nomination.
I’m guessing they might go for Sam Brinton. Left wing, and he ticks all the “I’m an insane perv” boxes.
I’m only half joking about that.
Really? Tulsi Gabbard is your idea of a moderate Democrat? The woman practically lives on Fox News, and endorsed DeSantis’s Don’t Say Gay bill. (The list goes on.)
The bill that actually doesn’t say that but go on
If that’s how you defend it, I really don’t know how to help you.
I start by not calling it something it isn’t. Like you are.
The fact that you literally don’t care what the bill actually says is pretty telling.
I do care, but not enough to look it up, or to attempt to argue about it with a bunch of hysterical lunatics. You guys would insist that the sky is green if Trump said so.
Then why bring it up?
Because it was a good example of something that no Democratic presidential hopeful could do and still win the nomination?
So you take umbrage with him undermining your made-up premise?
Like he’s the bad guy for not arguing from a position where your lies are actually true?
Why don’t you provide the name of someone you think is a moderate Democrat?
Sinema and Manchin are the least liberal but moderate? Nope.
Sinema is hot
“Sinema is hot”
Compared to who?
Back in the day Palin and Melina were hot but even at my age both are a little long in the tooth for my taste. Maybe I am a little jaded since I hang out at a university rec center and see lots of coeds in bikinis in the hot tub but it is hard for me to think of any pol that is hot compared to what I see on a regular basis.
“Compared to who?”
Most female politicians.
So by “hot” you really mean “under 65 and not completely insane” lol
She has nice boobs, is what I really mean.
She’s hardly actress pretty but for a 40something, she’s well above average. By politician standards she’s a 10.
Hahahahahaha! You’re quite the comedian.
You don’t like the guy who voted in favour of DOMA, against busing, and in favour of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? (To pick just a few.)
DOMA is old news, even most Republicans don’t care anymore. The “Republicans are racist so they must like my racist policies” trope is even older. Everyone voted for war, so that doesn’t exactly distinguish him from every other politician in the field.
Biden hasn’t been in the senate since 2008, so I’m not sure where you expected me to get a more recent example from.
Yes, that makes her a “moderate” Democrat. She’s still far to the left of Liz Cheney, she’s just not in Bernie Sanders territory.
Hold out your hands, palms down. Stick out your thumbs. Left is the one that makes an L.
Here’s a link to Gabbard’s votes on Trump issues.
Ugh, that’s terrible. (The analysis, I mean.) 538 should probably stick with elections, because this is clearly not their forte. (Or yours, if you think it proves anything.)
I’ll be hosting ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ today! Join me live at 8:00pm ET on @FoxNews
So yeah, no. Note a moderate anything. She’s not even a moderate Republican anymore.
Here’s the same analysis run on Liz Cheney.
You really going to tell me Gabbard isn’t to the left of Liz Cheney? Just because she appeared on FOX, and didn’t disagree with Trump 100.0000% of the time?
Liz might be the most conservative House member. Certainly top 10.
For some definition of “conservative” I’m sure that’s right. But then again that’s why we call Trumpists “Trumpist”, because calling them conservative wouldn’t be accurate and calling them reactionary makes them cry.
It’s funny to me this particular side argument appeared… on the same day tulsi guest hosted tucker Carlson’s show
Cheney has nothing in common with Democrats on a policy level.
We know that the Republican party is just a Trump cult of personality, but “opposed to Trump” turns out not to actually be the Democratic party platform or something that would be sufficient for any sort of successful primary run.
True story: the first five months I lived in Dublin I thought Paddy Power were a humorously named energy company. (Who inexplicably had lots of bricks & mortar stores so that people could pay their bills in person.)
Anyway, here are their odds for 2024: Democratic nominee: – Biden: 9/4 – Harris: 4/1 – Newsom: 5/1 – Buttigieg: 8/1 – Warren: 16/1 – AOC: 16/1
Republican nominee: – Trump: EVS – DeSantis: 15/8 – Pence: 12/1 – Haley: 16/1 – Cotton: 25/1 – Kanye: 25/1
Election winner: – Trump: 3/1 – DeSantis: 3/1 – Biden: 11/2 – Newsom: 12/1 – Harris: 12/1 – Pence: 18/1
Tl;dr, we’re all doomed.
DeSantis would win in a landslide. TDS is strong . I’m not sure about Trump.
Trump lost by seven million votes. Where would DeSantis find enough poorly educated, intolerant, religious culture war casualties to make up that ground (in a nation becoming less bigoted, less backward, less rural, less religious, and less white)? Are you predicting another three-cushion bank shot at the Electoral College for the Republicans?
Trump lost by approximately 50,000 votes spread over three states. Write back when we amend the Constitution to directly elect the President by popular vote.
Even in the drawling, drooling states, there just aren’t enough bigoted hayseeds left. Elderly, obsolete Republicans are taking their stale, ugly thinking to the grave in the natural course and being replaced in our electorate by people who are not gay-bashing, superstitious, racist old-timers.
Yes the Dems certainly worked hard to put tens of thousands older Americans in the ground before their time with their Covid rules. Slightly shortsighted since they will not have as many blank ballots to fill out.
Keep calling people “drawling, drooling, bigoted hayseeds” and see how many will still want to vote for your guy lol
The bigoted hayseeds constitute a minority in modern America — and a group whose support better Americans do no want.
You really need to watch 2000 Mules Rev.
Find a connection to the reality-based world.
It appears no competent adult needs to watch 2000 Mules.
Why would a Dutchman living in Dublin care about a US presidential election that’s over two years away? Who will be the next PM?
The next PM of Ireland (also called the Taoiseach)? Or The Netherlands (also called Minister-president van Nederland)? Or the UK?
I don’t live in Dublin. I lived there in 2003-04, if you’re interested in my bio.
And the reason why I care is because no single person has more power to break stuff in this world than the President of the United States. There’s a limit to how much good a good president can do, but a malicious one like Trump who likes breaking things for the sheer joy of seeing the shards on the ground can do a lot of damage. And since Congress isn’t going to do anything except hold hearings into political opponents for the rest of the century, while the Supreme Court is run by the GOP, it’s not like a Republican president would have a lot of constraints.
Tl;dr, this concerns us all.
If that’s the case you should be shitting your pant that Brandon is the President.
Biden? I think he’s been doing pretty well so far. Putting out a couple of fires that Trump started, or at least trying to. (He could have done more on Iran, for example.)
No notes on the Ukraine policy.
If I were him I would have grounded Nancy Pelosi’s plane, but I guess nobody remembers that there’s such a thing as the Logan Act.
Seems you left some things out. How about that Afghanistan withdrawal? Raging inflation, high energy prices, no baby formula (Berlin airlift effort seems to have stopped), open borders, hgih food prices…..?
Afghanistan was a mess, it’s where empires go to die. So it makes sense that the Americans left, althoug Trump should probably not have done that deal with the Taliban.
Inflation and high energy prices are happening everywhere. I’m not sure how that’s Biden’s fault.
The problem with baby formula has to do with decades of underenforcement of the antitrust laws. Consolidation = more bottlenecks in supply chains = instant mess if something goes wrong somewhere. Again not sure how that’s anything to do with Biden.
On immigration, I’m not sure that your claim (such as it is) is factually accurate. Historically Democratic presidents have often kicked out more brown people than Republicans, who only talk about doing that while taking bribes from companies that employ immigrants illegally. In any event, you seem to have me confused with someone who opposes immigration, which is odd given that this threat alone has involved references to two foreign countries where I live(d).
High food prices we already covered.
Doubt you will see this. The thread is too long and this is not the best way to have a discussion.
Afghanistan was much more than a mess. To quote Obama; “never underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up”. Done in the dark of night, with no notice to US allies, abandoning billions in high tech military equipment and the airfield that could have provided security for the operation, with no plan to get US citizens and Afghans who assisted the US, non existant security that resulted in 13 dead service members and no one held accountable. A disgrace!
One of the primary causes of inflation has been the rise in energy prices and this began way before Putin’s Ukraine adventure. When you make it a point to take actions to curtail energy production in what had become the world leader in that field it has world wide repercussions.
Agree that the baby formula shortage was due to many factors, but the Biden administration seemed totally unaware of it and only reacted after the fact in response to bad press.
Finally, immigration, both legal and otherwise has been a problem since 1965 and there is plenty of blame to go around. For various reasons both Democrats and Republicans share in this equally. However misguided you think Trumps efforts were at least he tried to get a handle on it and was opposed by both parties and in the courts.
Bumble, 50 years from now they will be teaching the withdrawal from Afghanistan as a brilliant example of a withdrawal from an indefensible position, with the enemy in complete command of every square foot that did not actually have a U.S. boot standing on it. The tiny casualty figure will be seen as miraculous. Biden was not directly responsible for that military success, but he was right to order it done, and lucky with regard to its outcome.
Only if Gen. Milley wrote the book. The Afghan withdrawal was a total clusterfuck with more troops dying than in the previous year.
It doesn’t hurt to review the facts :
(1) Trump negotiated the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan with almost no input from our Afghan allies and dependent on zero commitments from the Taliban except empty words.
(2) Biden postponed the withdrawal required by the Trump agreement once, but decided it couldn’t be put-off indefinitely. Per the Trump agreement, we only had a skeletal force left in the country by that time, and it wasn’t being targeted by the Taliban only because of our commitment to leave.
(3) No one I saw predicted the Afghan government resistance would be non-existent, at least not until it was safely a Monday-morning QB topic. Of course that their government troops took bribes and stepped-aside to let the Taliban forces pass unopposed just makes Biden’s withdrawal decision more justified.
(4) From what I can tell, only two tactical decisions warrant real debate. One was to stage the withdrawal from the city airport, as opposed to the U.S. base airport. That would have traded greater security for a longer transport line processing people out, and seems a wash at best. The second was not waiting until the winter season to withdraw, since little fighting is done then. That’s a closer call, but given the Taliban didn’t need to fight anyway it’s largely moot.
(5) All in all, Stephen Lathrop’s take seems closer to reality than Bumble’s. Given the impossible situation created by Trump and facing much worse conditions than anyone could have anticipated, the withdrawal was staged with extraordinary order. Of course there were ugly images which Biden has to own because that’s the way of politics, but in the bigger picture the military performed with a high degree of competence.
“but I guess nobody remembers that there’s such a thing as the Logan Act.”
I think, rather, that a lot of people remember that the reason the Logan act has never been enforced is that it’s widely understood to be grossly unconstitutional. It was more or less enacted as a piece with the Alien and Sedition acts, remember. And about as reputable.
Why would it be unconstitutional? If your concern is with the first amendment, didn’t we agree that the constitution only applies within the United States? If the US government can (hypothetically) shut down newspapers in Puerto Rico, why can’t it punish people for talking to the Taiwanese government in Taiwan?
No, we didn’t agree that the Constitution only applies within the United States. It applies to citizens regardless of where they are, and to non-citizens whenever they are under US jurisdiction.
The 1st amendment is very broadly written indeed, “Congress shall make no law”, it says nothing about where such laws would apply, or to whom, just that they can’t be made, period.
Wikipedia has a fairly good writeup on the Act. Only two people have EVER been indicted under it, neither indictment went so far as actual prosecution. It’s an antique that’s dusted off every time somebody in power gets annoyed over somebody talking to a foreign government, and put back away without being used to spare it being formally struck down.
That will come as a surprise to the inmates in GITMO, particularly to the ones that are still there.
While one might be able to bring an as applied challenge in a given situation, there’s zero reason to believe that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. It does not forbid mere speech; it applies to attempts to influence foreign governments in their dealings with the U.S. Engaging in diplomatic negotiations is conduct, not speech.
The Logan Act in no way applied to Pelosi’s trip.
And the reason why I care is because no single person has more power to break stuff in this world than the President of the United States. There’s a limit to how much good a good president can do, but a malicious one like Trump who likes breaking things for the sheer joy of seeing the shards on the ground can do a lot of damage. And since Congress isn’t going to do anything except hold hearings into political opponents for the rest of the century, while the Supreme Court is run by the GOP, it’s not like a Republican president would have a lot of constraints.
Trump broke the world!!! Says Martinned, who is totally not suffering from TDS.
Martin made a specific point about how Trump broke a bunch of stuff. (And did his level best to break more stuff, like NATO, where he fortunately was unable to accomplish what he wanted). Why on earth lie about what Martin said? . . . if you dispute that Trump seemed to delight in breaking things, then dispute that. If you acknowledge that Trump liked to do it, but it was a good thing (eg, that weakening or destroying NATO was a worthwhile goal), then man up and debate that point.
But you’re setting up an obvious strawman, and all that does is make you look dopey, or delusional. Which, I take it, is not your goal.
As we saw under President Trump and now with Potato Biden, the President is not the most powerful person in the world. It’s the Administrative State, and they do whatever they want no matter who is in office. They are unelected, unfireable, and generally unaccountable to anyone.
Every ill in this world can be traced directly back to the Federals.
Well, the fact that you’re mentally ill seemingly can be.
You lick the boot that grinds on your neck.
Your children must be so proud.
“Why would a Dutchman … care about a US presidential election”?
If you lived in Holland you’d have to care about something kinda interesting. Otherwise the depression would kill you.
Well except for the fact they they use Mayo on their French fries and drink Heinekin it’s a pretty nice country.
Nice is just another word for boring backwater.
Hey! What’s wrong with mayo on fries? I do it all the time.
I promise you no self-respecting Dutch person would drink Heineken. Even over here I only order it occasionally out of misguided solidarity with my native land. Back home I drink Grolsch or something good from Belgium, as would most people. (Well, unless they’re on a budget, in which case there are much cheaper beers than Heineken.)
I was generalizing since Heineken is so closely associated in peoples minds with the Netherlands. Grolsch is OK but since so many beers world wide have become part of huge beverage companies things have changed. I remember Belgium having some pretty good beers but I was there long ago.
Not much of a drinker, America.s oldest brewer and still independent.
Edit button please1
Not much of a drinker but here in the US I prefer Yuengling Lager, America.s oldest brewer and still independent.
Yuengling is the United States’ oldest brewer; Molson beat it by nearly a half-century in North America. Those two settled a dispute by agreeing Yuengling could market itself as “America’s Oldest Brewery” and Labatt would claim “North America’s Oldest Brewery.”
Recently, Yuengling became a part of Molson Coors. No longer independent.
” I promise you no self-respecting Dutch person would drink Heineken. Even over here I only order it occasionally out of misguided solidarity with my native land. Back home I drink Grolsch ”
This squares with my experience, in several respects. For example, decades ago I worked on a deal with some Dutch prospective acquirers of a client’s U.S. business (which had licensed Dutch steel technology). I remember two things. First, those guys did not seem to bathe. By the fourth or fifth past-midnight negotiating session the conditions in those two conference rooms were beginning to affect conduct and stamina. Second, at dinner after someone ordered a round of Heinekens, the Dutch were curious: ‘You Americans, some things we cannot understand. You can have anything you want, and you drink this shit beer. No one in Netherlands with money would touch Heineken, it is for tourists and the poor. Yet here we see it everywhere, Grolsch nowhere. You have so much money here, why do Americans do this?’
I sure agree with your bottom line. As di Lampadusa put in the mouth of Don Fabrizio di Salina, “We were the Leopards, the Lions; those who’ll take our place will be little jackals, hyenas.”
Something wrong with those odds.
Look at the odds for the D nomination.
I bet $90.31 as follows:
– Biden: $30.77 – Harris: $20 – Newsom: $16.67 – Buttigieg: $11.11 – Warren: $5.88 – AOC: $5.88
So if Biden wins I collect $69.23 and pay out $59.54. Net gain $9.69 If Harris wins I collect $80 and pay out $70.31. Net gain $9.69. hmm.
Care to try the rest?
Cheney doesn’t warrant a mention. She’s going to lose her primary by 20-30 points. She has no chance as Democrat. Anti-Trump is her sole use.
If prosecutors can bring convincing charges against Trump before primary season, she has a slim chance as the “I told you so” candidate. I mean convincing to Republicans who have not been much bothered by allegations of abuse of power and subversion of democracy. The modern day version of the smoking gun tape; the original Nixon tapes are not incriminating enough to bring Trump down. I don’t know what those charges would be or could be.
In the words of Dean Wormer zero point zero. Against DeSantis?
DeSantis has name recognition so he is among the leaders far in advance of the election.
“she has a slim chance”
LOL She has no chance. Her ceiling is maybe 1% of the vote.
Politics is a tribal sport. She broke the loyalty rules.
I believe only 2 of the 10 GOP impeachment voters will be in the next House. 4 [including Lizzy] beaten in primaries.
Jared Polis has the be on such a list.
Armchair, that’s a decent list except I’d put Cheney at zero. A “crossover” candidate of any kind is extremely unlikely, and even if it did, it wouldn’t be her. She has no base of support anywhere.
On “the field”, if Michelle Obama decided to get into politics she’d be immediately competitive against Biden and Newsom.
It will be Biden, I have a feeling they will do what Illinois Democrats did in 2014 with Pat Quinn. Rather than force him out in a messy primary, or have him decline to run (admitting failure) they basically arranged for him to lose to Bruce Rauner, who predictably was a 1 term governor, just keeping the seat warm until they brought in their new guy Pritzker.
They’ll use Trump 2.0 or DeSantis to get rid of Biden, and set up Newsom or more likely some mutiple-box-checking young hotshot in 2028. In that case Trump would be better than DeSantis, so they know they won’t be running against an incumbent in 2028.
The FBI was formed in 1908. Over 100 years without it? My gosh how did we survive?
Same with DHS and whole bunch of other stuff that is just unnecessary. Don’t reform it . Get rid of it.
And Ron Paul suggested this way back in 1988. An actual libertarian. Great idea!
Check out his news letter some time!
Does he say stuff you don’t like? That is a positive
Ron Paul is either a bigot or extraordinarily bigot-friendly.
This inclines many Volokh Conspiracy fans to like him.
He also is a disaffected right-wing loser. Another plus.
Yeah, that kind of unthinking oppositionism is only going to end well for you.
DEFUND THE POLICE!
The FBI is not exactly the police.
More like the KGB or Stasi.
We’re entering sheer hysteria mode – all at the slightest indication that Trump might be subject to the same laws as everyone else.
We should all be subject to the same laws as the Biden family. Or the Pelosi’s.
Wouldn’t that be neat?
Did the Bidens and Pelosis have sensitive materials from the White House in their homes? What double standards!
Is that the only law?
Weird, I thought there were more.
Not if you’re a Dem. Laws are for little people.
Like poor little ex-president billionare Trump?
I mean you’re acting like every single other thing has to be treated like an instance of breaking that law or there’s a double standard. But the fact is, the real difference is he broke a law, they didn’t. Get your head round that brainbender.
Hard to remember how gung ho all the conservatives and libertarians on here were for the DHS and FISA post 9-11. Pro-torture and Guantanamo Bay. It took a perfectly legal warrant to regain some documents from Trump to turn them all against it. Well. Within limits, I expect.
Libertarians were for DHS and FISA. Sure thing. You might be confusing many of the folks on Reason for libertarians.
Traditionally libertarians have a distinct No True Scotsman quality…
That was long before Volokh came to Reason, but they certainly claimed to be libertarian. The contradictions did not go unremarked upon.
Since Stossel it has been just claimed. Holy crap we agree on something ?
Chasing down misuse of federal documents is a rare legitimate use of federal law enforcement.
Chasing down misuse and pretty much everything else based on party affiliation is not. It’s the SS.
Violation of federal law can be enforced by the states. It already is 99% of the time.
Since it got brought up… the 2024 GOP Presidential nominees and odds.
1. Trump: 1:1 odds. -No one wants him to run. Except for Trump. And the Democrats of course. But he’s got the name recognition, the donor base, the previous experience….hopefully he will have learned from the mistakes he made in his first term.
2. DeSantis: 2:1 odds. -A better candidate in everyway compared to Trump. Problem is, Trump is already there, and running in DeSantis’s column.. If Trump doesn’t run, DeSantis is the runaway favorite. Or if it’s just a 2-man race, DeSantis could beat Trump. But if the field is split heavily again, no dice.
3. Marco Rubio: 10:1 odds. -He has both Trump and DeSantis in his way. Otherwise, he’d be a reasonable candidate to win.
4. Mike Pence: 50:1 odds -The single politician hurt most by the January 6th protests.
5. Kevin McCarthy: 100:1 odds – Bonus edition. -Assuming a continuation in scandals and the economy tanking, there’s an outside chance that Biden/Harris get impeached and removed in between January 3rd, 2024 and January 20th, 2024. The 2024 Senate elections are a very bad map for Democrats, and could easily see 8 Democratic Senators losing.
6. The field: 5:1
Only 1 and 2 are worth mentioning. There is no field
“. . . hopefully he will have learned from the mistakes he made in his first term.”
Trump didn’t make any mistakes in his first term (at least according to Trump and everyone else is lame or stupid or a traitor), so there’s nothing he has to learn from.
Oh, he made an absolutely ‘yuge’ number of mistakes.
Not firing enough people early on. Should have whipped out a list of people being fired right at his inauguration.
Thinking the GOP establishment was playing it straight with him.
Not realizing that following formal procedure was important.
Not realizing exactly how bad the media would get, and the need for non-intermediated access to the public.
It goes on and on.
Those are mistakes YOU are identifying.
Again, Trump (always) believes he’s perfect and never makes a mistake (again, it’s always someone else’s screw up), so therefore there’s nothing that “he” has to correct.
I didn’t say Trump thought he made mistakes. *I* think he made mistakes. Lots of them.
First mistake was putting any trust in establishment Republicans.
First mistake was voting for a guy who isn’t legally allowed run a charity.
Better to remain quite and be thought a fool…….
…than to vote for the braying idiot crook.
..and yet you choose to speak and confirm that you are indeed a fool.
Being called a fool by Trump supporters is like being called wet by the rain.
“Again, Trump (always) believes he’s perfect and never makes a mistake (again, it’s always someone else’s screw up), so therefore there’s nothing that “he” has to correct.”
Except all of the things Brett listed are basically Trump not accounting for “mistakes” (or bad behavior) of others. So it would be in character for him for to acknowledge and change his own behavior to compensate.
No, that’s not true. Trump is willing to admit that he made mistakes in terms of who he hired. (It’s not really an admission of his own errors, though; what he’s doing is throwing other people under the bus to explain away his own errors.)
I think Trump is going to have a really tough time if the DOJ is seriously investigating him. I would also give him even odds with DeSantis at this time. If there is an indictment though that names Trump all bets are off. No one knows what will happen then and there is the good chance the bottom will finally fall out.
He’s going to have a tough time if the DOJ is seriously after him regardless of whether they’re doing it to enforce the law or to just go after a political foe. They’ve got a lot of weapons to use against people once they decide they’re not worrying about the optics anymore, and they obviously aren’t.
I’ve been saying for something like a decade that we’ve been assembling the parts of a police state in America. I think they’re now firing that sucker up.
Your version of a police state is when a rich powerful Republican is subjected to the law. Everybody else’s is when cops can shoot people with no punishment and then beat the hell out of anyone who protests and teenage girls get arrested and tried as an adult for taking an abortificant after Facebook turn over her private chats to the police.
“good chance the bottom will finally fall out”
The walls are always closing in.
Winning from a jail cell would be the capstone to the Trump phenomena.
“DeSantis: 2:1 odds. A better candidate in everyway compared to Trump.”
Just absolute dogshit political analysis. Guy has negative charisma and will get absolutely destroyed by Trump. The only people who will vote for him are the people who want to just check the “most conservative” box on all “the issues.” In other words, there’s no real difference between Desantis in 2024 and Ted Cruz in 2016. Why wouldn’t Trump just run the same playbook again?
Your fear is showing.
Lmao, fear of what? Trump and Desantis support the exact same policies – why would I or anyone else be more scared of Desantis than Trump? The only difference is that Trump has charisma and can appeal to voters outside the Fox News bubble, and has proven he can win an election. Desantis has none of that. If you just want to ride his dick, go right ahead, but why don’t you start by explaining how he’s any better positioned to take in Trump than Cruz was in 2016?
In other words, there’s no real difference between Desantis in 2024 and Ted Cruz in 2016.
There’s a massive difference, which is that absolutely nobody likes Ted Cruz. To meet him is to dislike him.
Why wouldn’t Trump just run the same playbook again?
Because Trump 2024 isn’t similarly situated to Trump 2016.
Way too early, but I think Tim Scott should be in there, probably Kristi Noem, but like most other “Never say Never Trumpers” like myself, Desantis is my current choice.”
So, the news this week about the indictment of the Brianna Taylor cops got me to thinking. Here in Houston there was a raid about a year before – the Harding Street Raid – that was in almost every way worse than the Taylor raid.
The body count was higher, two innocent victims (and their dog, if you want to count dogs as carnage) vs one victim. This one was triggered by a neighbor calling 911 to report that her 25 year old daughter was doing black tar heroin at the victims’ house. She didn’t have a daughter at all, which the cops didn’t bother to check. Instead the cop in charge made up a CI report about buying black tar heroin at the house. There was no black tar heroin at the house after the raid and the CI told investigators that he’d never been to the house.
The evidence showed that the cops started shooting before they entered the house. Four cops were wounded, probably by friendly fire.
Investigation after the fact showed that the cop in charge, Gerald Goins, had built quite a track record of busts, frequently based on made up CI reports. They had to go back and back check 14,000 cases tied to him, and last I saw around 160 people had their convictions reversed because of Goins’ malfeasance.
And in the it’s a small world after all department, in 2004 Goins arrested George Floyd.
My question is this. How does everyone in the country know who Brianna Taylor was but nobody’s ever heard of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas? Is there another reason other than the obvious one?
Yes the race of the victims.
Ashley Babbitt George Floyd
The reason is that the cases that become high profile are the exception rather than the rule, since it takes effort and commitment and bravery and no small amount of sheer luck and happenstance to push a case into the public eye. The cops work hard to keep it that way.
White cop black victim. You’re over thinking it
Oh, yeah, some white people don’t get mad about cops shooting white people or black people, they only get mad when black people get mad at cops for shooting black people, or some woman tries to charge a barricaded door, I forgot.
Taking bets on when the Muslim murder story will disappear since it was an Afghan refugee who was responsible. Will Biden comment?
I’m sure you’ll try to keep it alive.
You don’t care that four innocent people were killed?
Grey lady has coverage today:
I haven’t received the print edition yet this morning, I will report back on where it appears
Just arrived. In the national edition at least, it’s on A1 but all the way in the left hand column with only the headline and first paragraph above the fold. Practically memory holed— you’re so right.
Also, gone from the Daily Mail site.
You make stuff up and atrribute it to others?
You mean will biden comment again now that they’ve potentially caught the guy? Because I’m seeing a comment from him about this dated sunday
Al Jazeera, which pays attention to this kind of story, had a followup yesterday. The murders may still be “hate crimes” but against Shiites rather than Muslims in general. Can we rename the Thirty Years War the Hate War because it was largely between sects of the same religion?
Ha ha what story? Already gone
It’s on the front page of the New York Times today, as I mentioned above
Ah, but will you ever see it mentioned again?
4 people shot in America isn’t exactly news…