A Deeply Fractured US

[lenaitch]

You’re completely unqualified to say this. As am I. As is anyone here. The reason I say that is because none of us have access to the sworn, sealed affidavit submitted to the court to establish grounds to believe the existence of a federal offence, and to believe evidence would be found at that location. This is not a small thing to do; the last one I wrote to go into a residence a few weeks ago was around 65 pages long. This is not an “I suspect and therefore I want”; you have to convince a judge that your grounds to believe are subjectively and objectively reasonable and are well founded on a basis of solid information. You’re way out of your depth trying to speak to this, or trying to claim that they could not have grounds, or that there would be other less intrusive means. Even if there were, the law does not require that.

Perhaps too many people are swayed by 'cop procedural' TV shows where a warrant appears in the time it takes for the commercial and is a single piece of paper pulled from the jacket pocket.

 

[Halifax Tar]

In a way Trump's pledge to drain the swamp is happening. I don't think he intended on being the first one down the drain though.

This is only first step. Wait until the plug is pulled in the DNCs sink.

Be careful what you send around, it has a habit of then coming around.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Theft of TSSA material is not a minor crime.

Although it sometimes is treated like one, if your name is Sandy Berger.

 

[lenaitch]

I don’t believe it does. A search warrant, as you and I well know, is very routine and doesn’t require ‘urgency’ or exhaustion of investigative avenues the way, say, a wiretap might. The words you quoted are those of a pundit who apparently doesn’t know much about judicial authorizations.

Oh, I know. I was trying to sound neutral.

 

[Brad Sallows]

They grabbed anything and everything they could lay their hands on in order to suss out his plans, his contacts, his funding.

Yes, once in the door there's latitude to grab stuff. But the obvious explanation is that the purpose of the search was to find the documents everyone assumes are at the heart of the matter. Trump's foes haven't been avoiding the unnecessary battle or waiting for the kill shot; they've been throwing everything they can come up with at him hoping that something will do damage. Someone suggested they might be able to get him on records retention; someone else said "good idea"; away they went.

Wray being a Trump appointee doesn't overshadow the fact that Garland is not, and there's no reason I've seen yet to believe Garland wasn't in the loop. It's problematic that Trump is not only a past president but also a reasonably probable future candidate.

Don't underestimate the "get that fucker" factor. A lot of people lost a rice bowl when Trump won - Clinton, everyone who figured a job in Clinton's administration was a sure thing, every neo-con who not only had to cope with being displaced from the centre of influence for at least two terms but also the subsequent realization that they are now complete political orphans, Garland.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If the best you have is speculation that police lied in their grounds, in what will assuredly be the single most scrutinized judicial authorization in American history, than I don’t know what to tell you. There’s a difference between the the world that will go into the investigation of a former president and a warrant in federal court, versus what goes into a low level drug file at the state level.



Those lawyers are also unqualified to make the assertion you’re claiming, because they also don’t have access to the sworn affidavit. Only someone who is actually informed about the specifics of the sworn grounds the affiant relied upon to obtain the warrant can comment knowledgeably about this. Republican lawyers getting paid for TV spots have no special authority here. Not them, not me, not you. The affiant, the judge, and the lawyers who reviewed the affidavit are the ones who have this knowledge unless someone leaks the affidavit.



I don’t believe it does. A search warrant, as you and I well know, is very routine and doesn’t require ‘urgency’ or exhaustion of investigative avenues the way, say, a wiretap might. The words you quoted are those of a pundit who apparently doesn’t know much about judicial authorizations.

Not being smart, but perhaps you should stop trying to apply Canadian law and procedures to an American situation. They are not the same.

Whether biased or not, lawyers are all we have at the moment and when lawyers talk law on TV they can't bullshit about it. It's unprofessional and they'll be called out on it. When I listen to what they say, I consider it more than internet blather.

 

[QV]

Yes, once in the door there's latitude to grab stuff. But the obvious explanation is that the purpose of the search was to find the documents everyone assumes are at the heart of the matter. Trump's foes haven't been avoiding the unnecessary battle or waiting for the kill shot; they've been throwing everything they can come up with at him hoping that something will do damage. Someone suggested they might be able to get him on records retention; someone else said "good idea"; away they went.

Wray being a Trump appointee doesn't overshadow the fact that Garland is not, and there's no reason I've seen yet to believe Garland wasn't in the loop. It's problematic that Trump is not only a past president but also a reasonably probable future candidate.

Don't underestimate the "get that fucker" factor. A lot of people lost a rice bowl when Trump won - Clinton, everyone who figured a job in Clinton's administration was a sure thing, every neo-con who not only had to cope with being displaced from the centre of influence for at least two terms but also the subsequent realization that they are now complete political orphans, Garland.

They have demonstrated this exact behavior over and over again while 45 was sitting POTUS. It's not a stretch to assume they're doing it again. In fact the default assumption now should be just that, and it's deserved.

 

[QV]

Question to the folk who despise Trump on here: to what ends would you go in order to keep a white supremacist or a nazi out of the highest office in the land?

 

[brihard]

Question to the folk who despise Trump on here: to what ends would you go in order to keep a white supremacist or a nazi out of the highest office in the land?

 

[GR66]

Question to the folk who despise Trump on here: to what ends would you go in order to keep a white supremacist or a nazi out of the highest office in the land?

Based on their actions in 2016 and 2020 they would go so far as vote against him/her.

How far would those that idolize Trump go to KEEP a white supremacist or a nazi in power? January 6th might give you a hint.

 

[QV]

Based on their actions in 2016 and 2020 they would go so far as vote against him/her.

How far would those that idolize Trump go to KEEP a white supremacist or a nazi in power? January 6th might give you a hint.

Let's work in chronological order... you go first.

We'll get to the outcome of the Jan 6th hearing and how it went from "Trump planned an insurrection" to... "Trump didn't discourage a crowd fast enough" later.

 

[GR66]

So what is the outcome of the Jan 6th hearing? It started out Trump planned an insurrection... where are we at now?

Here's a list of those charged to date.

You asked how far anti-Trump people would go to stop a white supremacist or nazi from getting into power. I don't recall seeing any mobs occupying the Capital Building in January 2017 trying to stop Trump from taking power. They bitched, they complained, they moaned and they protested, but they didn't try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power despite their distaste for the winner of the election.

The same can't be said for the other side.

 

[QV]

That's not what the Jan 6th hearing was portrayed to be about... it was a "get Trump" event. I'm not interested in what a handful of crazies have done. The progressive left's only ammunition is to trot out the craziest example of any particular issue. So far the Jan 6th hearings have exonerated Trump as that he did not plan, organize, or encourage any insurrection - as alleged.

And you're still not acting in chronological order here... it's important to the context of the Jan 6th event. Here's a hint: trust in sacred institutions has been lost. In order to talk about how it got to that point, you need to acknowledge the extreme malfeasance that was carried out against Trump during his time in office. Then you would understand why a great many people had questions about the integrity of the elections in 2020 and wanted more time for proper audits.

 

[Good2Golf]

Question to the folk who despise Trump on here: to what ends would you go in order to keep a white supremacist or a nazi out of the highest office in the land?

Irrelevant.

 

[QV]

Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant. Real patriots would do anything to prevent Hitler from getting into office, wouldn't they? If you knew Hitler could win, and you could do something about that but didn't, wouldn't you be a gigantic coward?

I'm pretty sure there were a lot of people who believed and stated Trump was a white supremacist dictator...

 

[Good2Golf]

Not irrelevant. Real patriots would do anything to prevent Hitler from getting into office, wouldn't they? If you knew Hitler could win, and you could do something about that but didn't, wouldn't you be a gigantic coward?

I'm pretty sure there were a lot of people who believed and stated Trump was a white supremacist dictator...

Yup, irrelevant.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Here's a list of those charged to date.

You asked how far anti-Trump people would go to stop a white supremacist or nazi from getting into power. I don't recall seeing any mobs occupying the Capital Building in January 2017 trying to stop Trump from taking power. They bitched, they complained, they moaned and they protested, but they didn't try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power despite their distaste for the winner of the election.

The same can't be said for the other side.

It can be said of the left. You just selectively ignored their transgressions. I guess you missed when they attacked the White House and the Secret Service had to hustle Trump to the bunker. Rocks injuring police to the point they had to use tear gas to clear it. Democrats.

And let's not forget the riots that happened over the election. That wasn't Trump supporters out there burning, looting and murdering. Democrats

And all those times the dems stood in the House and refused to accept the will of the people in 2016 calling for dismissal of State vote counts.

Stacey Abraham's still hasn't conceded her lost race either. Democrat.

And I'm all done with this for now. I already put too much into this already.

It will go one of two ways and nothing we say will change a single thing.

L8r

 

[brihard]

Not irrelevant. Real patriots would do anything to prevent Hitler from getting into office, wouldn't they? If you knew Hitler could win, and you could do something about that but didn't, wouldn't you be a gigantic coward?

I'm pretty sure there were a lot of people who believed and stated Trump was a white supremacist dictator...

It’s irrelevant. Nobody in this thread has made allegations that Trump is a Nazi or a white supremacist. You’re therefore just dropping a rather dumb red herring into the thread. Basically more of the stupid crap we’re specifically supposed to not do because it makes the politics threads toxic and useless.

There was a reasonable, civil, and fact based conversation underway; you dropped trou and took a dump in the middle of it. I see it was Chili night.

 

[Kat Stevens]

You mean when the FBI wasn’t run by a Trump appointee, like it is now?

Well, lemme see, now...
Uncle Joe rep-" we want you to obtain and execute a wide brush warrant for Cheetoman's house"
Top FBI guy- "But, but, he gave me my job!"
Uncle Joe rep- "And a very nice job it is. Good salary, full bennies, nice pension. it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."
Top FBI guy- "What colour paper do you want it on? Is sans-serif okay for the font?"

 

[Good2Golf]

Well, lemme see, now...
Uncle Joe rep-" we want you to obtain and execute a wide brush warrant for Cheetoman's house"
Top FBI guy- "But, but, he gave me my job!"
Uncle Joe rep- "And a very nice job it is. Good salary, full bennies, nice pension. it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."
Top FBI guy- "What colour paper do you want it on? Is sans-serif okay for the font?"

Too right!

Everything is Sleep Joe’s fault.