A Deeply Fractured US

[QV]

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.

Trump's enemies characterized him as racist, a nazi, even a dictator. Trump has many enemies in America's civil service. It's not unrealistic to suggest those people who truly believe Trump is a racist would do many things to prevent him from obtaining office because they really believe they are acting on moral grounds. In fact, recent history is loaded with examples of folks in positions of trust doing some pretty bad stuff because of their personal distaste for 45.

You're inability to comprehend that possibility is not my problem. Your underhanded insults reflect who you are.

 

[brihard]

Trump's enemies characterized him as racist, a nazi, even a dictator. Trump has many enemies in America's civil service. It's not unrealistic to suggest those people who truly believe Trump is a racist would do many things to prevent him from obtaining office because they really believe they are acting on moral grounds. In fact, recent history is loaded with examples of folks in positions of trust doing some pretty bad stuff because of their personal distaste for 45.

You're inability to comprehend that possibility is not my problem. Your underhanded insults reflect who you are.

As I said, an utter red herring given what was actually being discussed. I stand by every word I said in describing your… contribution. If you want to simply say “the cops lied”, you can achieve that with three words rather than hiding behind innuendo.

 

[Remius]

People should take off the partisan colours and armour until we actually know what this is about. Brihard has pointed out that only a few people know what this warrant was for. I would assume that Trump does. He could divulge it if he wanted to but hasn’t.

I am also guessing that they are handling this very carefully and that this isn’t just some Hail Mary thing to keep him out of office…

 

[brihard]

People should take off the partisan colours and armour until we actually know what this is about. Brihard has pointed out that only a few people know what this warrant was for. I would assume that Trump does. He could divulge it if he wanted to but hasn’t.

I am also guessing that they are handling this very carefully and that this isn’t just some Hail Mary thing to keep him out of office…

Trump will know what evidence was sought, where it was sought, and what offence(s) are believed to have been committed. He will have the warrant itself, which has that limited info. He won’t have the affidavit outlining the affiant’s grounds to believe the offence, evidence, or place. That would generally get unsealed and disclosed to the accused if anyone ends up indicted and facing trial. The reason that information typically stays sealed is to preserve information known to the investigators that they may still act further on, or the disclosure of which could compromise other investigative efforts.

 

[Kirkhill]

When the second Protectoral Parliament offered the crown to Oliver Cromwell, he,
despite his conservative impulses, rejected it. Why would a man who believed in the
ancient constitution and hoped to stabilize the British Isles turn down a traditional title
that had the potential to unify the nation? The answer partly lies within the numerous
political tracts that were printed in the 1650s. The kingship crisis sparked the creation of
many pamphlets and petitions that sought to sway Cromwell one way or the other. Three
prominent groups that wrote regarding the possibility of King Oliver I were monarchists,
sects, and republicans. Monarchists sought to illustrate the advantages of kingship, the
sects wrote of the consequences of kingly rule, and the republicans were divided on the
question. An analysis of the language and arguments in both the pamphlets addressed to
Cromwell and Cromwells own speeches reveals that the sects were the most influential
group that wrote to Cromwell. At times, sectarian criticisms of the Protectorate were able
to elicit responses in Cromwells speeches, a feat accomplished by neither monarchists
nor republicans. Employing providential language, the sects were able to convince
Cromwell that God had judged against the office of king and that any attempt to
reestablish such a government would result in eternal damnation. Cromwells own
religious convictions rendered him susceptible to reasoning of this sort. Once he was
aware of the sects arguments, Cromwell believed that he had no choice but to refuse the
crown.

https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/002/MR37368.PDF

Pamphlets were the Twitter of the 1650s.

Make of that what you like.

 

[QV]

As I said, an utter red herring given what was actually being discussed. I stand by every word I said in describing your… contribution. If you want to simply say “the cops lied”, you can achieve that with three words rather than hiding behind innuendo.

Innuendo? I guess you missed the part where FBI and DOJ already lied and got caught while investigating Trump.

Here is some real innuendo:

I don’t think for a second that the alleged mishandling of classified documents is the extent of Trump’s legal woes. This is merely what took place today. Of note, generally if a search is lawfully executed, and in the course of doing so evidence of other offences is discovered, that can become useable for investigations. I won’t speculate as to whether a search of Trump’s private office would have uncovered other documents of legal significance. It certainly cannot be ruled out.

Do you recall who said that? Page 54.

Trump has yet to be convicted of any criminal offences, you can't say the same for the FBI/DOJ team that went after him.

If Trump has committed real crimes he should be appropriately dealt with. But right now this looks absolutely terrible for the FBI, Biden administration etc.

 

[Remius]

Innuendo? I guess you missed the part where FBI and DOJ already lied and got caught while investigating Trump.

Here is some real innuendo:



Do you recall who said that? Page 54.

Trump has yet to be convicted of any criminal offences, you can't say the same for the FBI/DOJ team that went after him.

If Trump has committed real crimes he should be appropriately dealt with. But right now this looks absolutely terrible for the FBI, Biden administration etc.

How does it look terrible without even knowing what it’s for yet? Lol.

 

[brihard]

Quoting you again, to keep you on track:

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?

Your comment was addressed to us. The other participants in the thread. (you narrowed it down to those who ‘despise Trump’) You addressed to us this nonsense about white supremacists and Nazis in the context of Trump running for office. It was therefore irrelevant to the actual subject at hand.

Then you took it a step sillier and made the literal Hitler comparison, and I believe insinuated @Good2Golf would be a ‘coward’ in your fictitious circumstances, although he wouldn’t play ball with you:

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...

So- the most charitable I can be is to suggest you’re simply trying to insult our collective intelligence, although I doubt I’m the only one here who you are unable to meaningfully insult.

As I’m not inclined to be most charitable, I’ll say instead that I think you’re blatantly trolling with this Nazi/white supremacist/hitler nonsense. It’s foolish.

 

[brihard]

Another search warrant today: Congressman Scott Perry’s cellphone was seized by the FBI pursuant to a search warrant. As of yet I haven’t seen anything reliable on the offence(s) in question underlying the warrant.

Evidently some investigations are accelerating.

Trump ally Scott Perry says FBI have seized his phone following Mar-a-Lago raid

Pennsylvania congressman a leading supporter of former president’s electoral fraud claims

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Good2Golf]

Innuendo? I guess you missed the part where FBI and DOJ already lied and got caught while investigating Trump.

Bet ya Trump’s regretting pulling Comey and nominating Wray right about now, eh?

Funny how when Trump thought he was controlling everything that Wray was awesome…now the likes of Cruz, Graham and Rubio, who campaigned and then voted for Wray think he’s that anti christ now…

Donald Trump nominated the FBI director who led the Mar-a-Lago search: 'He will make us all proud'

Wray's nomination was confirmed by a GOP-led Senate, with votes from Trump allies such as Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

"We will have a great FBI director. I think he's doing really well and we're very proud of that choice. I think I've done a great service to the country by choosing him," Trump said in a speech while visiting France in 2017. "He will make us all proud, and I think someday we'll see that and hopefully someday soon."

 

[Brad Sallows]

I am also guessing that they are handling this very carefully and that this isn’t just some Hail Mary thing to keep him out of office…

My skepticism stems from all the other things over the past years that were handled very carefully by people who know the law and were thought certain to bring the miscreant to justice. Tuesday fer shure.

 

[QV]

How does it look terrible without even knowing what it’s for yet? Lol.

There is a bad track record. Until it’s fully explained and justified, it looks bad.

Organizations that have demonstrated gross conduct don’t get the benefit of doubt.

 

[QV]

Bet ya Trump’s regretting pulling Comey and nominating Wray right about now, eh?

Funny how when Trump thought he was controlling everything that Wray was awesome…now the likes of Cruz, Graham and Rubio, who campaigned and then voted for Wray think he’s that anti christ now…

Donald Trump nominated the FBI director who led the Mar-a-Lago search: 'He will make us all proud'

Doubtful. Sooner or later Comey was going no matter who won.

 

[brihard]

Bet ya Trump’s regretting pulling Comey and nominating Wray right about now, eh?

Funny how when Trump thought he was controlling everything that Wray was awesome…now the likes of Cruz, Graham and Rubio, who campaigned and then voted for Wray think he’s that anti christ now…

Donald Trump nominated the FBI director who led the Mar-a-Lago search: 'He will make us all proud'

He may also be regretting signing the amended law in 2018 that turned mishandling classified documents into a felony. (18 USC 1924)

 

[Good2Golf]

Doubtful. Sooner or later Comey was going no matter who won.

Irrelevant.

Point being Trump was the very person who nominated Wray and campaigned for him. Supporting cast of Cruz, Graham and Rubio, Trump’s senate dream team ensured it happened.

 

[Remius]

Donald Trump should go after the guy who appointed Wray.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Donald Trump should go after the guy who appointed Wray.

Couldn't resist

Meanwhile, stand by for counterbattery fire ....

Trump says he took the Fifth in New York civil investigation

Former President Donald Trump will be questioned under oath Wednesday in the New York attorney general’s long-running civil investigation. Follow AP's live coverage.

apnews.com

 

[KevinB]

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.

Keep in mind the way our Judges are elected and appointed.
You can alway find a Judge to issue a warrant even a very flimsily written one.

If the grounds exist to believe evidence will be located, a search warrant can be granted. We cannot know if perhaps there are grounds to believe that not all material was handed over, or perhaps that copies were illegally kept. If information was kept that was classified, particularly if any was TSSA, that’s not a small deal.

That ship sailed on Hillary Clinton.
Trump even gave her a pass, despite an election promise to jail her.

Not sure who the author of that opinion piece is, but clearly his grasp of the law is limited. None of that he pouts about is how a search warrant or an affidavit to get one work. If Trump chooses to disclose the search warrant he can, but otherwise the warrant and the affidavit to get it are court records subject to certain handling by law. If US law works at all similarly to ours (and for something this rudimentary it probably does), the affidavit is likely sealed at least while the investigation is ongoing and before the matter goes to a grand jury or court. To reveal the specific contents of the affidavit could basically blow an ongoing investigation by virtue of what’s contained within it.

The materials should all eventually become public, but that doesn’t happen on the basis of someone’s tantrum. It happens in the due course of judicial proceedings.

Shouldn’t occur based on tantrum…

Ultimately either there is evidence to support criminal offences or not. That will most definitely become clear in the fullness of time. Probably not that much longer, as executing a search warrant on a residence is an irrevocable transition of a criminal investigation from a covert to an overt phase, and there’s only so much more you can do once the offence being investigated and some of the investigative steps become extremely public. Investigative avenues become more more limited once a case is in the open. If charges are laid, the accused, whoever they may be, will I’m sure have plenty of lawyer to throw at this and ensure due process continues as it has thus far.

Honestly the Anti-Trump Republicans like me, have more to gain from this than Democrats or Trumpian Republicans. Ideally we can just have him indicted and banned from future office, but unfortunately the degree of nastiness probably won’t stop at this, and the tit for tat will continue until we end up in a Civil War.

 

[GR66]

Honestly the Anti-Trump Republicans like me, have more to gain from this than Democrats or Trumpian Republicans. Ideally we can just have him indicted and banned from future office, but unfortunately the degree of nastiness probably won’t stop at this, and the tit for tat will continue until we end up in a Civil War.

Unfortunately I think that the increasingly polarized political culture that is evolving South of the border is being strongly reflected here as well. While I think that a literal Civil War is unlikely in Canada I fear that political polarization combined with growing regionalism could be a very real threat to Confederation.

Sadly, neither of the main Federal political parties appears to have any interest in putting an adult in charge that understands the urgent need for a statesman/stateswoman to begin mending the divisions in our country and drawing the factions and regions together in our shared interests. Instead they both are focused on whipping up the divisions in order to gain narrow, partisan political victories.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think that this is political nitroglycerine and needs to be handled with the greatest care.

I suspect that the warrant is legally and procedurally very sound. I cannot imagine it have been approved without a lot of soul searching.

I also suspect that the law enforcement/investigative folks may be using a small, eminently provable issue - improperly held documents (someone compared it to arresting Trump for overdue library books ) - in order to find evidence of a bigger thing, maybe something related to 6 Jan or to tax evasion, or, or, or ...

If there is no criminal indictment and, therefore, no conviction then I think Trump becomes a victim, even a martyr and his chances of being returned to office in 2024 are very, very good. That's the Democrats (and some Republicans) worst nightmare. But no President has ever been hauled up in front of a criminal court. Who can imagine any former President in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit?

In my opinion, the political aim can only be to tarnish Trump in some highly public way with something - and it will have to be a really big something - that will turn off his very large and loyal following and make it practically impossible for him to do well in 2024.

IF that happens then my guess is:

The Democrats nominate someone who can win - not Sleepy Joe, maybe Harris, maybe someone else;​

​

The Republicans nominate a MAGA candidate - maybe Haley; and​

​

Trump runs as an independent.​

​

The desired outcome - for America, in my opinion - is that Trump finishes a distant third and, at age 78, retires, probably gracelessly.

Donald Trump has a large and still loyal following. They are, by and large, good, decent, honest, hard working people who are convinced that America undervalues and disregards them. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant; what matters, politically, is that they believe it and they believe that Donald Trump speaks for them. They need to see something that says that Donald Trump is NOT their man; they need to be persuaded that he does NOT care about them or about the country they love. The political outcome of all this needs to be something that changes the Trump narrative - something that makes him unacceptable to most of his current good, decent, honest, hard working followers.