• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Deeply Fractured US

Not surprising. The fact that they testified just means the Grand Jury called them as per of its investigation. It doesn’t mean that their testimony ultimately strengthens or weakens the criminal allegations. If May have done either or even both, but we’ll have to wait and see.

As I mentioned upthread in response to Fishbone, the indictment explicitly notes that the USSS has no role in the security of the classified documents / national defense information that were stored at Mar-a-Lago, but their presence absolutely could make them material witness to how those documents were stored or handled, and what instructions may have been given by whom, to whom, and what those instructions were. Some people make the mistake of thinking bodyguards don’t notice or retain memory of such things… or that they will never be compelled to speak of it.
 

Not surprising. The fact that they testified just means the Grand Jury called them as per of its investigation. It doesn’t mean that their testimony ultimately strengthens or weakens the criminal allegations. If May have done either or even both, but we’ll have to wait and see.

As I mentioned upthread in response to Fishbone, the indictment explicitly notes that the USSS has no role in the security of the classified documents / national defense information that were stored at Mar-a-Lago, but their presence absolutely could make them material witness to how those documents were stored or handled, and what instructions may have been given by whom, to whom, and what those instructions were. Some people make the mistake of thinking bodyguards don’t notice or retain memory of such things… or that they will never be compelled to speak of it.

I’m dumb, didn’t expand the link. So they were testifying to the Jan 6th grand jury, not the documents one. Damn. That means the Jan 6th grand jury is circling Trump as well.
 
Judge in Trump Documents Case Denies Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Request to Seal Witness List

 
Last edited:
Judge in Trump Documents Case Denies Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Request to Seal Witness List


Yup, they asked to seal the witness list - which is routine at this stage - but didn’t articulate a why, nor did they explain why partial redaction couldn’t have sufficed to satisfy the government’s interests. Her denying the motion, in that case, was fair. The motion was denied without prejudice, so they’ll likely re-file with a beefy articulation as to why they’re asking. It may be granted at that point or it may go to appellate court.

This is the same judge who briefly imposed the ‘special master’ on the search warrant results before DOJ got her decision overturned at circuit court of appeals. DOJ will be very life to the possibility of some weird rulings from her on procedural matters and will be prepared if they need to appeal some of them.

Flip side to this, as of last week the prosecution has provided its first major wave of discovery to defence, so defence now knows who the witnesses are, including who has flipped, as well as what most of the evidence is going to be. Though more evidence may be added as Trump continues to give TV interviews where he falsely asserts that what he is alleged to have done was legal…
 
Another leak out of the DOJ? Where did it come from?
Do you have evidence it came from DOJ? A significant tranche of evidence was recently turns over to the defense, and that particular recording was obtained from a writer who made it in the course of an interview. There are multiple potential sources, and I don’t believe any of us have any information at hand to say who leaked it.

That aside, what are your thoughts on the actual contents of the recording?
 
Amusing how media have arrived at a point at which "Trump backed" can just be thrown in where it suits.
 
Back up your truck. I asked two questions. Did you see my question marks before you jumped up to try centre me out again? I asked where did it come from, didn I? Try reading for a change, I should have known better than to open your ignored narrative. Give your questions to someone else to ask. This'll be our last convo here.
It's audio. Where is the document? What was the document? Did he wave a piece of paper? Something that was supposedly written by Mille? Was it marked secret or confidential? We know nothing, so far. There's no physical proof. You guys are always going on about what a lying blowhard he is, maybe this was just more stupid bravado and puffery. I'll tell you what is puffery, is people jumping all over more stupid unprovable (so far) innuendo leaked to make Trump look bad and divert attention from biden's crimes.
 
Last edited:

White House press secretary violated Hatch Act, government watchdog says​


White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre violated a law intended to prevent federal employees from using their offices to influence elections when she repeatedly referred to “mega MAGA Republicans” in the run-up to the 2022 midterms, a government watchdog agency said


And they continue to violate the Hatch Act almost daily, including Biden.
 
Did you see my question mark before you jumped up to try centre me out again? I asked where did it come from, didn I? Try reading for a change, I should have known better than to open your ignored narrative. Give your questions to someone else to ask.
It's audio. Where is the document? What was the document? Did he wave a piece of paper? Something that was supposedly written by Mille? Was it marked secret or confidential? We know nothing, so far. There's no physical proof. You guys are always going on about what a lying blowhard he is, maybe this was just more stupid bravado and puffery. I'll tell you what is puffery, is people jumping all over more stupid unprovable (so far) innuendo leaked to make Trump look bad and divert attention from biden's crimes.
Sorry, I misunderstood the tone of your post. In fairness you did only offer the one example of where it may have come from. Given the angle you usually take on this I think my mistake is understandable- but it was still my mistake. You kinda center yourself in these when you return from a hiatus and jump right in with stuff like ‘TDS’, and of course you’ve made your beliefs about the integrity of DOJ and investigators very well know. I wasn’t exactly leaping to a wild assumption, and I did in fact ask a question that offered you the chance to clarify- which you did, and I appreciate that. I understand that you’re equally open to the possibility that the interview was leaked by someone in DOJ, someone in Trump’s team, or a separate third party.

On the subject of whether I or anyone else is ‘reading for a change’, though, have you read the indictment yet? You’ve conspicuously not answered that.
 
Back
Top