Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,972
- Points
- 1,160
Well look how Charest and PP treat each other in emails to CPC supporters, sheesh save it for the Liberal.
A Deeply Fractured US
- Thread starter BeyondTheNow
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 6,119
- Points
- 1,160
People are pissed at their politicians and feel they have no recourse. They can't threaten them. Most can't even talk to them. They are frustrated at every turn. Politicians should feel thankful people just call them names. Doesn't matter what side you're on.
- Reaction score
- 4,284
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 1,522
- Points
- 1,260
Attachments
- Reaction score
- 8,314
- Points
- 1,160
FWIW
www.realclearinvestigations.com
FBI Unit Leading Mar-a-Lago Probe Earlier Ran Discredited Trump-Russia Investigation
By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigationsAugust 18, 2022 The FBI division overseeing the investigation of former President Trump's handling of classified material at his Mar-a-Lago residence is also a f
Minor update on Trump’s Document Stash: with ten minutes to go before the judge begins the hearing on motions to unseal the search warrant affidavit, Trump’s legal team has not filed a motion with the court actually asking for it to be unsealed. Any claim by Trump or his crew that they want the affidavit unsealed is not backed by any legal action to argue for that. One of Trump’s lawyers is present at the court and has said they will not be filing anything.
If Trump actually wanted the affidavit unsealed, why wouldn’t he actually have his lawyers present an argument to the court to try to do so?
I suspect he and his legal team want to know what it says, but decidedly do not want the public to know what it says, which unsealing would result in. Not that the court will grant unsealing during an ongoing investigation anyway.
If Trump actually wanted the affidavit unsealed, why wouldn’t he actually have his lawyers present an argument to the court to try to do so?
I suspect he and his legal team want to know what it says, but decidedly do not want the public to know what it says, which unsealing would result in. Not that the court will grant unsealing during an ongoing investigation anyway.
- Reaction score
- 6,505
- Points
- 1,360
Well of friigin' course he wants to know.....who on earth wouldn't want to know why they are being investigated?
And you also answered your own question if you look back at what you wrote in your last sentence.
Between you and FJ, the TDS and the Reverse TDS is fun to watch....
And you also answered your own question if you look back at what you wrote in your last sentence.
Between you and FJ, the TDS and the Reverse TDS is fun to watch....
I avoid being credibly accused of ‘derangement’ by doing my best to stick to either facts on public record, of reasonable and conservative inferences made from same. I leave the highly speculative or sensational stuff to others, which is why you’ve even seen me speak out about it in this thread.
If the dude’s blazed himself a trail of legal disaster, that ain’t on me or anyone else commenting intelligently on it. But you’ll note I haven’t so much as suggested he personally is likely to be criminally charged with anything through this entire discussion. I’m waiting to see how the facts speak.
There is certainly some legal and PR strategy to say “I want this unsealed” but not actually going through the motions.
He can publicly say he wants it unsealed. His supporters will see that, and point to it. They will ignore the fact that his legal team isn’t actually filing a motion because those same supporters won’t trust or won’t even read anything that would point that fact out.
So win win for him on that part? At least from a PR point of view.
Because if you can suggest insanity on the part of the person you’re arguing with, and if you can convince others it’s true, there’s less demand on you to support your point with facts and reason. It’s a dishonest attempt to shift the onus from you building your own case, to the other guy having to argue that he’s not crazy in order to even be admitted to the discursive arena.
The whole “derangement syndrome” ad hominem has always been juvenile whether applied to Trump or Obama, Trudeau or Harper, or insert any name here. What it is not, is discussing in good faith or with any meaningful attempt at reasoned or civil discourse.
Precisely. It rallies the base and is grist for the fundraising mill without running the risk of accidentally winning the matter in court and potentially seeing damning information come to light publicly with midterm elections coming up.
Events in the courtroom are just one of the tents in the circus. Politics is another. National security is another one. Different parties have different levels of interest in hanging out in different tents.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,629
- Points
- 1,260
And I read one of Trump's foes - Liz Cheney - has been defeated in a primary.
This does not bode well for the USA. Moderates are tossed under the bus in favor of those who blindly follow Trump. AM I correct in saying that?
IIRC that is how an Austrian corporal became a genocidal maniac or at least very similar.
This does not bode well for the USA. Moderates are tossed under the bus in favor of those who blindly follow Trump. AM I correct in saying that?
IIRC that is how an Austrian corporal became a genocidal maniac or at least very similar.
I think it’s safe to say the Trump owns the party. The number of Trump backed nominees winning their primaries is quite high.
I would not go as far as that comparison but the GOP seems to be made up of Trump supporters or moderates that are staying quiet or along for the ride.
- Reaction score
- 1,522
- Points
- 1,260
Looks like the endorsed one fell in line,
Lawyer Who Defeated Cheney Spent Career Fighting Environmental Rules (Published 2022)
Harriet Hageman, who challenged Representative Liz Cheney, worked for decades as a lawyer opposing environmentalists and federal regulations of resources in Wyoming.
I’m surprised. The judge has said he is “not prepared to find the affidavit should be fully sealed” based on the record currently before him, and has told DoJ to come back in a week with proposed redactions to be applied if the affidavit were partially unsealed.
Tidbits from the DoJ argument:
The big “so what?” I’m taking from today is that a lot of work remains to be done, particularly in terms of witness interviews. That will be key to establishing, to a degree provable in court, who knew what and when and who is accountable for decisions made and any concrete actions or omissions that invite legal jeopardy.
Tidbits from the DoJ argument:
- Affidavit contains specific information that would identify specific witnesses
- The investigation is in its “early stages”
- DOJ fears reduced cooperation from future witnesses if too much is released
- Releasing the affidavit would provide a “roadmap to the investigation” and reveal next steps
- There is “robust witness interview” activity ongoing
- There is Grand Jury activity ongoing
The big “so what?” I’m taking from today is that a lot of work remains to be done, particularly in terms of witness interviews. That will be key to establishing, to a degree provable in court, who knew what and when and who is accountable for decisions made and any concrete actions or omissions that invite legal jeopardy.
- Reaction score
- 6,119
- Points
- 1,160
Aha ha ha, funny guy.
- Reaction score
- 6,119
- Points
- 1,160
Sure. I'll go for a truce. All you have to do is get people to stop the slurs and perjorative verbiage about Trump and Republicans. They don't say it, I won't rebutt. Pretty simple.
Looks like I got one call right. The 18 USC 793 offense under investigation - the Espionage Act one - you may recall I noted that there were multiple subsections, not all of which connote actually sharing or trying to share defence information. I hypothesized that they were likely looking at one of the two ‘wilfully retained’ subsections, d) or e). The warrant cover sheet unsealed today appears to confirm that.
The significance is that, as of the time the warrant was applied for, investigators were not claiming probable cause for an offense of attempting or succeeding in the communication or dissemination of defence information. This is why I’ve been super cautious and hesitant about the word ‘espionage’ being bandied about. The offence in question is someone having lawful possession of defence information and wilfully failing to return it. Classification of the information is not a necessary part of the offense.
EDIT TO ADD: In quoting the tweet below I’m not endorsing the naming of any particular suspect. I don’t know who truly had possession or custody of the records seized in the warrant, or who would be legally accountable and culpable. There are several plausible possibilities, I don’t know enough to say.
The significance is that, as of the time the warrant was applied for, investigators were not claiming probable cause for an offense of attempting or succeeding in the communication or dissemination of defence information. This is why I’ve been super cautious and hesitant about the word ‘espionage’ being bandied about. The offence in question is someone having lawful possession of defence information and wilfully failing to return it. Classification of the information is not a necessary part of the offense.
EDIT TO ADD: In quoting the tweet below I’m not endorsing the naming of any particular suspect. I don’t know who truly had possession or custody of the records seized in the warrant, or who would be legally accountable and culpable. There are several plausible possibilities, I don’t know enough to say.
Last edited:
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,972
- Points
- 1,160
- Status
Similar threads
