• 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

WLSC said:
I did not defend Garland. I just said Hawley was a briliant guy and he knows were to run fast. Garland don't need me to defend himself.
Click to expand...
Ahh, my mistake. It hard to tell when you're being sarcastic. We have a slew of emojis to help you with that.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
The dems spent 4 years doing exactly that. It started with them.
Click to expand...
Oh, sweet Jesus; and everything was sweetness and light before that. Besides, 'they started it' is a grade school argument.

It's no different than discussions about Canadian politics. Depending on which way one leans, one side sits at the right hand of God and the other is Satan. Objectivity left the building a long time ago.

It is so tiresome.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
Make an argument sunshine. You're a smart fella. Defend garland.
Click to expand...

Easy. For the sake of redeeming myself, since you haven’t been a fan of my contributions to the discussion tonight, I’ll indulge you on this one. I’ll go with the assumptions most favourable to you: I’ll assume that Harley has truthfully and objectively represented to the committee what the WaPo article says. I’ll assume that Hawley is in fact a good faith actor. I’ll assume the allegations against which Garland is to be defended is something along the lines of he personally influenced the course of the investigation. So without further ado:

We know that from May to December, 2021, The National Archives and Records Administration repeatedly directed Trump to return government records he had unlawfully retained. We’ll refer to this as ‘please’. See para 39 on page 14 of the Mar a Lago search warrant affidavit here: DocumentCloud

We know that in May 2022, a grand jury issued Trump a subpoena commanding the production of all documents bearing classification markings- which he of course was not allowed to keep. We’ll refer to this as ‘pretty please’. See para 52 on page 21 of the Trump indictment here: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf

We know that investigators formed probable cause to believe that Trump’s staff had not turned over all records bearing classification markings, that those documents were actively hidden, and that Trump’s lawyer filed a false certification that the subpoena had been complied with. See basically the whole criminal indictment at https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf

We know that investigators knew enough of this last paragraph to form probable cause to believe that documents bearing classification markings were hidden at the Mar a Lago property, and that they had probable cause and met all the legal requirements to get a search warrant for Mar a Lago. We know this because they got a search warrant for Mar a Lago.

Now, taking those most charitable assumptions I listed above: It sounds like FBI investigators, despite having probable cause to believe that classified government records had been unlawfully retained at Mar a Lago, were too reticent to get a search warrant. I would speculate that that might be due to the sensitivity around whose property it was. It sounds like FBI agents were trying to argue - indefensibly in my opinion - that with ‘please’ and ‘pretty please’ having failed, the COA would be to offer ‘cherries on top’ to get these classified records back into a secure space and back into lawful US government possession.

The US has much more direct involvement of prosecutors - DOJ in this case - in their criminal investigations than we do. Even at that, it’s not weird here for prosecutors to tell us as investigators that we need to get a warrant or other judicial authorization if we wish to advance an investigation. In the US, prosecutors are much more active still in investigations. It sounds to me, again (reluctantly) taking Hawey at face value, like the FBI we’re reluctant to do their job, and DOJ had to push to make sure that they took concrete steps to get classified records back.

The execution of the search resulted in the seizure of classified information at top secret level, and comparmentalized including (but not limited to) signals intelligence(//SI), reconnaissance satellite information (//TK) and clandestine human intelligence (//HCS) plus others that were redacted. We know this from the indictment, linked above. Given that fact, if Garland did what he’s accused of - if investigators were reluctant to get a search warrant that they absolutely met the legal threshold to get, and if he told the FBI to give their balls a tug and get this material back - then he should be applauded for it. Sometimes prosecutors are absolutely warranted in stepping in to make sure the a matter of grave national interest is handled properly. If Garland acted as alleged, the US government has regained custody of over a hundred classified documents, some exceptionally sensitive, that may otherwise have been in the wind.

Even if this were to be seen as interference and a prosecution fall apart because of it, the criminal proceedings aren’t even always the biggest tent in the circus when it comes to matters of national security. These are records that absolutely needed to not be out in the wind in some dude’s bathroom, ballroom, and office, vulnerable to God knows what risks.

I trust this perspective maybe offers a different view of what Hawley’s cranky about?

(EDIT TO ADD: Again to reinforce- I’m indulging some very charitable assumptions. I have no belief that Garland, the FBI, other DOB officials were in any way neglectful of their duties.)
 
lenaitch said:
Oh, sweet Jesus; and everything was sweetness and light before that. Besides, 'they started it' is a grade school argument.

It's no different than discussions about Canadian politics. Depending on which way one leans, one side sits at the right hand of God and the other is Satan. Objectivity left the building a long time ago.

It is so tiresome.
Click to expand...
Do we need to go into the false Russia, Russia, Russia narrative? The spying on a candidate and POTUS? The false FISA warrants and... and.... and...
I'm not saying this is new, but everyone has made this thread about Trump, so that's where my arguement lays. And it is, all about Trump, isn't it? Nothing about all the stuff the bidens are involved in, the two tiered justice system, the Durham report, the Congressional hearings the Schiff censure and Clinton escaping prosecution. The thread title is a Deeply Fractured US. That should include all the illegality, bribery, weaponisation, corruption and policies like open borders, on both sides. However, it's not. It's all about Trump. Are we going to see the same zeal from the same people when impeachments and charges start to fly? Probably not. That's what is tiresome.
 
No hard feelings... ironic

Man fatally shot in New Mexico movie theatre over seat dispute​

Enrique Padilla, 19, accused of opening fire on Michael Tenorio after he found the victim and his wife sat in seats

A man was shot dead after an argument over seating at a cinema in New Mexico that saw moviegoers fleeing for safety.

Enrique Padilla, 19, is accused of opening fire on Michael Tenorio after he found the victim and his wife sat in seats he had bought for himself and his girlfriend.

Police say that the staff at the cinema in Albuquerque tried to resolve the issue at the screening of No Hard Feelings but that the situation escalated with shoving, a thrown bucket of popcorn and then gunfire.

Tenorio, 52, was shot and his wife told investigators that he had been unarmed, according to the Associated Press.

An off-duty police officer who was there tried to perform life-saving measures on Tenorio, but he died at the scene as a result of his wounds.

Man fatally shot in New Mexico movie theatre over seat dispute | The Independent
 
daftandbarmy said:
No hard feelings... ironic

Man fatally shot in New Mexico movie theatre over seat dispute​

Enrique Padilla, 19, accused of opening fire on Michael Tenorio after he found the victim and his wife sat in seats

A man was shot dead after an argument over seating at a cinema in New Mexico that saw moviegoers fleeing for safety.

Enrique Padilla, 19, is accused of opening fire on Michael Tenorio after he found the victim and his wife sat in seats he had bought for himself and his girlfriend.

Police say that the staff at the cinema in Albuquerque tried to resolve the issue at the screening of No Hard Feelings but that the situation escalated with shoving, a thrown bucket of popcorn and then gunfire.

Tenorio, 52, was shot and his wife told investigators that he had been unarmed, according to the Associated Press.

An off-duty police officer who was there tried to perform life-saving measures on Tenorio, but he died at the scene as a result of his wounds.

Man fatally shot in New Mexico movie theatre over seat dispute | The Independent
Click to expand...
The movie was called “No Hard Feelings”? Is this for real?
 
daftandbarmy said:
No hard feelings... ironic

Man fatally shot in New Mexico movie theatre over seat dispute​

Enrique Padilla, 19, accused of opening fire on Michael Tenorio after he found the victim and his wife sat in seats

A man was shot dead after an argument over seating at a cinema in New Mexico that saw moviegoers fleeing for safety.

Enrique Padilla, 19, is accused of opening fire on Michael Tenorio after he found the victim and his wife sat in seats he had bought for himself and his girlfriend.

Police say that the staff at the cinema in Albuquerque tried to resolve the issue at the screening of No Hard Feelings but that the situation escalated with shoving, a thrown bucket of popcorn and then gunfire.

Tenorio, 52, was shot and his wife told investigators that he had been unarmed, according to the Associated Press.

An off-duty police officer who was there tried to perform life-saving measures on Tenorio, but he died at the scene as a result of his wounds.

Man fatally shot in New Mexico movie theatre over seat dispute | The Independent
Click to expand...

What kind of state is a society in when they shoot people over a theatre seat ?

That's a sad state of affairs.
 
daftandbarmy said:
No hard feelings... ironic

Man fatally shot in New Mexico movie theatre over seat dispute​

Enrique Padilla, 19, accused of opening fire on Michael Tenorio after he found the victim and his wife sat in seats

A man was shot dead after an argument over seating at a cinema in New Mexico that saw moviegoers fleeing for safety.

Enrique Padilla, 19, is accused of opening fire on Michael Tenorio after he found the victim and his wife sat in seats he had bought for himself and his girlfriend.

Police say that the staff at the cinema in Albuquerque tried to resolve the issue at the screening of No Hard Feelings but that the situation escalated with shoving, a thrown bucket of popcorn and then gunfire.

Tenorio, 52, was shot and his wife told investigators that he had been unarmed, according to the Associated Press.

An off-duty police officer who was there tried to perform life-saving measures on Tenorio, but he died at the scene as a result of his wounds.

Man fatally shot in New Mexico movie theatre over seat dispute | The Independent
Click to expand...

Important question. Did the theatre refund the ticket price for patrons who fled the shooting?

Once the showtime for the ticket has passed, tickets are not refundable
Click to expand...

And they say that even bad publicity is good publicity.

A screengrab from the theatre's website.

No Hard Feelings.jpg
 
Blackadder1916 said:
Important question. Did the theatre refund the ticket price for patrons who fled the shooting?
Click to expand...

Or, did they fight over the suddenly vacant seat?

He had just sat down in his seat at the Polo Grounds in Manhattan to watch the double-header baseball game between the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers when a bullet hit him in the forehead killing him instantly. The bullet was fired from outside the stadium and had traveled almost a half-mile to reach Doyle's seat in the upper-tier of the stadium. The next day the New York Daily News ran the now famous photo of Doyle sitting dead in his seat and reported that after his body was removed the standing-room-only crowd had fought over the vacant seat.
 
mariomike said:
Or, did they fight over the suddenly vacant seat?

He had just sat down in his seat at the Polo Grounds in Manhattan to watch the double-header baseball game between the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers when a bullet hit him in the forehead killing him instantly. The bullet was fired from outside the stadium and had traveled almost a half-mile to reach Doyle's seat in the upper-tier of the stadium. The next day the New York Daily News ran the now famous photo of Doyle sitting dead in his seat and reported that after his body was removed the standing-room-only crowd had fought over the vacant seat.
Click to expand...

For the less fainthearted see here
 
Not unheard of in Albuquerque, sadly a lot of gun violence there.
 
Halifax Tar said:
What kind of state is a society in when they shoot people over a theatre seat ?

That's a sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...
Nothing new, people can, have and will kill people over the pettiest of things. Realistically it is the pettiest of things which set people off the most.

Big issues like government mismanaging funds, poorly designed laws, unfair punishments, etc. are all things people don't get that upset over. Your neighbour blowing snow on your yard or playing their music too loud? That is the type of stuff people go ballistic over. One of my friends is a 911 dispatcher, the types of complaints people go nuts over are usually the dumbest ones which aren't even against the law.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Nothing new, people can, have and will kill people over the pettiest of things. Realistically it is the pettiest of things which set people off the most.

Big issues like government mismanaging funds, poorly designed laws, unfair punishments, etc. are all things people don't get that upset over. Your neighbour blowing snow on your yard or playing their music too loud? That is the type of stuff people go ballistic over. One of my friends is a 911 dispatcher, the types of complaints people go nuts over are usually the dumbest ones which aren't even against the law.
Click to expand...
I’d say the absolute worst can be domestics, but aside from that, yeah, that all checks out.
 
KevinB said:
Well I’m sure glad my name isn’t DJT
open.substack.com

What is a proffer, and why Defendant Trump should be very worried about two of them this week

Let’s get this out of the way upfront: you don’t want to be in a position where making a proffer agreement is the best idea you have to keep your sorry ass out of jail. Here’s another good one: you would rather testify before a grand jury than have your lawyer call up federal prosecutors and...
open.substack.com open.substack.com
Click to expand...
I wonder how they know what went on in a confidential meeting with prosecutors for the Special Council and a potential witness? Could this be speculation? Or another leak? Just the other day SC Smith was trying to keep all his witnesses sealed so nobody would know who they were or try intimidate them.

I'm sure there's a perfectly plausible explanation that I'm missing, as to how the Times knows exactly what went on in that office. And that it was perfectly legal to report on it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
    • Insightful
    • Like
Analysis of US Wishlists 2025
Replies
0
Views
3K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Departmental Results Report 2022-2023
Replies
2
Views
7K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Kirkhill
    • Like
US National Guard
Replies
3
Views
3K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
daftandbarmy
Digital government: how are we doing?
Replies
5
Views
9K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
Kirkhill
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
18 19 20
Replies
394
Views
159K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Back
Top