FBI Raid at Mar-A-Lago

[Chip]

Along with the frenzied shrieks of the Trumpistas, there's a buzz circulating that the raid was aimed at super-classified nuclear documents that had been sold, or were soon to be sold, to the Saudis.

That would make sense of Trump's reluctance to go after the killers of Jamal Kashoggi and likewise the Saudi pledge of $2 billion to a nebulous investment fund set up by Jared Kushner, which now appears to be a way to launder payment for the nuclear info.

If true, it would certainly expose Trump to charges under the Espionage Act, along with several other laws.

Probe into Donald Trump's interactions with Saudi Arabia has resurfaced following a report FBI agents who raided the former president's Florida residence were seeking documents related to nuclear weapons.

Citing anonymous experts in classified information, The Washington Post said the search showed concern among U.S. government officials about what kind of information could be located at the Mar-a-Lago Club and whether it could fall into the wrong hands.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said he approved the decision for the search warrant at the resort. The Justice Department has filed a motion to make the warrant public, which could happen on Friday afternoon.

While the Post said these sources provided no further details over whether the documents were recovered, what the information was and which countries it pertained to, the raid has focused minds on an investigation released in February 2019. That House of Representatives report highlighted whistleblowers' concerns with the Trump Administration's "efforts to transfer sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia," and was tweeted on Thursday by Judd Legum, who runs the Popular Information newsletter.

"We don't know why Trump took classified nuclear docs," Legum said in a follow-up tweet. "But certain nuclear information would have very high economic value to Saudi Arabia and other governments."

That committee report made a number of accusations against the Trump administration, including that it tried "to rush the transfer of highly sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia." This was without congressional review and in potential violation of the Atomic Energy Act that restricts the export of U.S. nuclear technology.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-nuclear-mar-lago-raid-washington-post-1733182

[Lloyd]

So scary. If those documents were declassified (he had that authority while President but not since), there'd be an official record of that (it's part of the declassication process). Needless to say, he shouldn't have any classified, no less TS+, documents at Maralago. I'm surprised, though, that it took this long for document control to flag this material as missing.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Much ado about nothing.

In a perfect world for me, the Dems would finally be successful in finding some trivial technicality to prevent him from running again. He's gone but he's still got his crowd fired up and we end up with some mix of DeSantis, Noem and Grennell for the next couple of decades.

More likely, this is how you get more Trump.

[Chuck Naill]

Much ado about nothing.

In a perfect world for me, the Dems would finally be successful in finding some trivial technicality to prevent him from running again. He's gone but he's still got his crowd fired up and we end up with some mix of DeSantis, Noem and Grennell for the next couple of decades.

More likely, this is how you get more Trump.

David Brooks agrees. He asked if the FBI just re-elected Trump.

This is not a nothing burger investigation as some of the materials were marked “classified/TS/SCI” . Any reasonable person would ask why these materials were taken.

From Heather Cox Richardson today...
"After days of attacks on the FBI and the Justice Department by former president Trump and his supporters for the Monday search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property, today a federal judge unsealed the search warrant and the property receipt for that search. The warrant shows that agents were investigating whether Trump violated the Espionage Act.

The property receipt reveals that agents reclaimed for the United States more than 26 boxes of documents, including ones labeled “classified/TS/SCI,” which means “top secret/sensitive compartmented information.” This is highly classified material that is available only to those necessary to the project, and must be discussed, used, and stored only in secure locations because its release to the public would cause “exceptionally grave” damage to our national security.

Trump’s lawyer Christina Bobb, who is also an anchor for the right-wing One America News Network, signed the property receipt.

Even before the release of the warrant, Trump had offered a number of excuses for taking documents to Mar-a-Lago and then keeping them despite a subpoena for their return. First, he blamed FBI agents for planting them on the premises, riling up his base against the FBI. That effort continued today: before the judge unsealed the documents, it appears Trump leaked them to Breitbart, which published them without blacking out the names of the agents who executed the search warrant, evidently intended to menace them.

Then he claimed that while he had taken only a few documents, former president Barack Obama had taken 33 million. This afternoon, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) put out a statement clarifying that it took possession of all Obama’s presidential records when he left office in 2017 and that it moved about 30 million unclassified pages of them to a “NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the P[residential] R[ecords] A[ct], former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his administration.”

Now he and his allies are saying that he declassified all the documents he took out of the Oval Office, so the recovered documents were no longer classified. The fact they were not marked declassified, as required, was simply because White House counsel didn’t get the paperwork done.

But there is a process for declassification; a president can’t just say something is declassified. Further, as legal analyst and former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa clarified, a president cannot unilaterally declassify nuclear secrets.

Legal analyst Joyce White Vance said, “Even if this is true & it holds up (I’ve got significant doubts) what does it say that Trump declassified materials that put our national security in grave danger? And that the Republican Party continues to support him?”

[dneal]

The entire constitutional power of the executive is vested in one person. All offices and officers of the executive branch derive their authority from that one constitutional position (the presidency). Doesn't matter if it's Trump or Obama, Harding or Adams.

If, while sitting as the president, he said they're no longer classified; there's no higher authority to clear it with.

Much ado about nothing.

[Chuck Naill]

If he had declassified the materials, the classified markings would have been removed.

[dneal]

If he had declassified the materials, the classified markings would have been removed.

Administrative silliness that doesn't have anything to do with the power of the presidency, other than the authority to administrate is derived from him. If he simply says they aren't classified, then they aren't.

Who knows though, maybe the Dems will find a friendly DC or NYC court and squeak this one through.

[Chuck Naill]

Apparently, that is not how it works. If something is no longer top secret, you take off the stickers. However, violations of the Espionage Act, is behind the inquiry brought by the National Archives. Maybe this has nothing to do with it, but given Trump's history and carelessness, the cause of concern is not unexpected.

[dneal]

Yes Chuck, that is one of several narratives too.

[Chuck Naill]

Occasim's Razor is operative. Given the former president's history, what would a rational person think is the simplest solution aka what's going on? Has an honest public servant type person been persecuted for political purposes or is this an example of comeuppance?

As Maurine Dowd just wrote, "One of the more delicious aspects of this is that Merrick Garland, the man Mitch McConnell kept off the Supreme Court, is now the one who could bring Trump to justice.".

Who'd-A-Thunk?

[Chip]

Occasim's Razor.

Oc·​cam's razor | \ ˈä-kəmz-
less commonly Ockham's razor

Definition: a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

William of Occam (also spelled "Ockham") didn't invent the rule associated with his name. Others had espoused the "keep it simple" concept before that 14th-century philosopher and theologian embraced it, but no one wielded the principle (also known as the "law of parsimony") as relentlessly as he did. He used it to counter what he considered the fuzzy logic of his theological contemporaries, and his applications of it inspired 19th-century Scottish philosopher Sir William Hamilton to link Occam with the idea of cutting away extraneous material, giving us the modern name for the principle.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Occam's%20razor

[Chip]

https://i.imgur.com/Bmku7nE.jpg

[TSherbs]

If he simply says they aren't classified, then they aren't.

False.

[dneal]

If he simply says they aren't classified, then they aren't.

False.

Really? Who must a sitting president ask to declassify a document? What process must a sitting president go through to get a document declassified? Is there an authority or agency the president requests this from? That authority must be vested somewhere, right?

[Chuck Naill]

You are missing the point, @dneal. Had the document been declassified, it would not retain the markings. Trump cannot retroactively declassify or say he did so in the past without some supportive documentation or else how would anyone know? I don't doubt a president's authority, but I do doubt he or someone just happened to forget to take off the markings.

And, had the documents been declassified, the National Archives would be the agency to know. They are the ones seeking the materials. Why ask for a declassified document and why is the Espionage Act being discussed? As a former military person, I would think you would take the possibility of sensitive information being leaked a real concern. As they say, loose lips sink ships.

[dneal]

Chuck, I agree that he can't retroactively declare anything.

I'm simply saying that a valid defense for him is that he declassified these documents while in office. The markings don't make something classified or not, and they don't weigh against a sitting president (and not just Trump, by the way) having the authority to unequivocally declassify something. JFK's assination? CIA files on UFO's? Any sitting president can declassify whatever they want just by saying so.

1/3 of the power of the country is vested in whoever sits at that desk. The entirety of constitutional executive power. Where the buck actually stops. Truman relieved MacArthur. He also ordered dropping two atomic bombs on a country we were at war with.

Whether or not that same office has the power to declassify at an utterance or stroke of a pen is even something to quibble over is remarkable.

[Lloyd]

You are missing the point, @dneal. Had the document been declassified, it would not retain the markings. Trump cannot retroactively declassify or say he did so in the past without some supportive documentation or else how would anyone know? I don't doubt a president's authority, but I do doubt he or someone just happened to forget to take off the markings.

And, had the documents been declassified, the National Archives would be the agency to know. They are the ones seeking the materials. Why ask for a declassified document and why is the Espionage Act being discussed? As a former military person, I would think you would take the possibility of sensitive information being leaked a real concern. As they say, loose lips sink ships.
Yep. Where I worked, Document Control checked the location of every classified document at our location every 6 months ("working papers", the classified documents created for brief usage such as analysis by one person, have a 6 month shelf life after which they must be either disposed of or logged into the system). One declassified document can cause many derived documents to become declassified. This all needs tracking. The president can classify/declassify virtually any info, but the related document(s) must be properly marked and recorded as a result.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

Here's an article from NYT discussing declassification. It says the real issue isn't the classification, it's what the contents are, how they were (mis)handled, and other implications.


Presidential Power to Declassify Information, Explained

While it is legally irrelevant, former President Donald J. Trump claims he had declassified the top secret files the F.B.I. seized at his Florida residence.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/14/us/politics/trump-classified-documents.html
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Trump didn't declassify any of that shit. He's changed his story three times. He's a lying rat who doesn't care about rules and regulations and national security.

The Executive does not have the unlimited power to do so whatever they want, even with classification and the handling of documents. The description of the powers and responsibilities of the presidency also stipulates that they must follow the law. Well, turns out that there are laws governing behaviors with documents. Awe shucks, the president isn't a king.

[dneal]

Trump didn't declassify any of that shit. He's changed his story three times. He's a lying rat who doesn't care about rules and regulations and national security.

The Executive does not have the unlimited power to do so whatever they want, even with classification and the handling of documents. The description of the powers and responsibilities of the presidency also stipulates that they must follow the law. Well, turns out that there are laws governing behaviors with documents. Awe shucks, the president isn't a king.

You don't know what he did or didn't do any more than I did.

Again - "I'm simply saying that a valid defense for him is that he declassified these documents while in office."

You're right that "the executive does not have the unlimited power to do so whatever they want..."; right up until you get to the reality. First one is that for classified information, the president is the final authority.

None of this shit is even new. Dems tried this angle before with the "he revealed classified info to the Russians" nonsense in 2017.

This rabid Trump obsession is going to get him reelected.

[Lloyd]

As dneal is implying, regardless of how vile Trimp and his actions are, if our legislature can't legally stop him from running in 2024, these media events will get his followers extra determined to get him into office.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I couldn't fucking care less. I, for one, won't accede to a lie just because it means that the lie would hurt Trump more than the truth will. I'm not in this thread because I am trying to advise a political campaign. I'm just saying that Trump is a repeated liar (which I smell in this case), and that presidents do not have unlimited power, even around handling official documents, as Article 2 of the Const makes clear. They must uphold the laws, even those governing the handling of official documents. And, like I said, Trump doesn't give a shit. My guess is that his followers don't either. I don't give a shit about their opinion either.

[Lloyd]

I couldn't fucking care less. I, for one, won't accede to a lie just because it means that the lie would hurt Trump more than the truth will. I'm not in this thread because I am trying to advise a political campaign. I'm just saying that Trump is a repeated liar (which I smell in this case), and that presidents do not have unlimited power, even around handling official documents, as Article 2 of the Const makes clear. They must uphold the laws, even those governing the handling of official documents. And, like I said, Trump doesn't give a shit. My guess is that his followers don't either. I don't give a shit about their opinion either.
I never meant to imply that you (nor anyone) should remain silent. In fact, I feel the opposite. The issue is the media's premature over-hype of the potential "evils" that Trump MIGHT be jailed for. With each over-publishized allegation that doesn't result in a punishable event, his minions grow stronger. Trump is great at conning his fan base via manipulating his media... having no conscience and being a mercenary egomaniac gives him a big advantage.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Trump is great at conning his fan base via manipulating his media... having no conscience and being a mercenary egomaniac gives him a big advantage.

No, it doesn't. I disagree. This just means that he can manipulate some fools. It's a tactic, not an advantage. Again, you have to pick your hierarchy of values. Whether Trump's base is energized is low on my values list. I actually think we should scream truth against the lies. Louder and louder. Bannon says fill the zone with shit. I say scream the truth back even louder. Never waver. Those folks hope that we'll tire out and leave the field in discouragement. That people won't be able to discern the truth. Well, only if we let the fog of bullshit hang in the air. Fuck that.

1) Trump is a repeated, habitual prevaricator.

2) Trump's statements around these documents smell and look like his typical prevarication pattern. He has altered his justifications and has lied in these justifications about other facts.

3) presidents do NOT have unlimited powers with document handling and must uphold the law, as Article 2 makes very clear.

[Lloyd]

Trump is great at conning his fan base via manipulating his media... having no conscience and being a mercenary egomaniac gives him a big advantage.

No, it doesn't. I disagree. This just means that he can manipulate some fools. It's a tactic, not an advantage. Again, you have to pick your hierarchy of values. Whether Trump's base is energized is low on my values list. I actually think we should scream truth against the lies. Louder and louder. Bannon says fill the zone with shit. I say scream the truth back even louder. Never waver. Those folks hope that we'll tire out and leave the field in discouragement. That people won't be able to discern the truth. Well, only if we let the fog of bullshit hang in the air. Fuck that.

1) Trump is a repeated, habitual prevaricator.

2) Trump's statements around these documents smell and look like his typical prevarication pattern. He has altered his justifications and has lied in these justifications about other facts.

3) presidents do NOT have unlimited powers with document handling and must uphold the law, as Article 2 makes very clear.
Those "fools", some who are quite bright when not encountering his level of duplicity reinforced by his ego, nearly outnumbered the left in 2020 and did in 2016. Once again, I 100% agree that the people (you and I) should speak out against any governmental illegality. However, yelling before the facts are in only boosts his base. We don't have the full story yet of the documents. If he is announced as guilty before the facts are in and he isn't, it'll be a big boost for him.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I didn't say he was guilty of anything criminal. That is not a truth. So I'll repeat:

1) Trump has been a repeated liar in the past.

2) I think that he is lying about having declassified those documents while he was president.

3) presidents can't do anything they want with documents. They have to follow the law. It says so in Article 2.

[TSherbs]

Those "fools", some who are quite bright when not encountering his level of duplicity reinforced by his ego, nearly outnumbered the left in 2020 and did in 2016.

Not everyone who voted for Trump is a member of that "base" that believes everything he says. Many republicans held their noses while they voted for him. Again, I am not advising campaign or election strategy. In this thread, I don't care about that. In fact, I only posted to reject dneal's false claim about presidential power. Caring primarily (or exclusively) about election victory is one of the wide roads toward grave ethical error (ends justify the means).

[Chuck Naill]

Trump didn't declassify any of that shit. He's changed his story three times. He's a lying rat who doesn't care about rules and regulations and national security.

The Executive does not have the unlimited power to do so whatever they want, even with classification and the handling of documents. The description of the powers and responsibilities of the presidency also stipulates that they must follow the law. Well, turns out that there are laws governing behaviors with documents. Awe shucks, the president isn't a king.

You don't know what he did or didn't do any more than I did.

Again - "I'm simply saying that a valid defense for him is that he declassified these documents while in office."

You're right that "the executive does not have the unlimited power to do so whatever they want..."; right up until you get to the reality. First one is that for classified information, the president is the final authority.

None of this shit is even new. Dems tried this angle before with the "he revealed classified info to the Russians" nonsense in 2017.

This rabid Trump obsession is going to get him reelected.

If you had the authority, would you allow Trump to ignore laws and everything we know that he did, be excused? And, if so, would that be a better strategy if you didn't want him in office again or if you hope he would against occupy that office? Should Biden call off the FBI, National Archives, and the DOJ? Please don't dodge the question or answer something I didn't ask.

I tend to think these institutions to operate as the miliary on non-partisan manners. That does not make them infallible, and I do not even expect perfection. However, vilifying public servants holds them to a standard most of us couldn't meet.

Some information about a president's power to declassify and the process to do so.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/14/us/politics/trump-classified-documents.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3D FDm8eiPkORJCH_0bRZKF4IMcpwjGDAdRFOaQ0RfJzw-MaM0tmVgylpIef3pQZJiF_4aSCYlQL5bOfF7Yp7W2tKWCjNOZ0 wLD44x7dbWG6WKTAgXUqIxJiosMzaQn52ycXlf3OErVy3IZ52P olFYk6EWlbHFSCv_DpDhl7MN6Hf0ucvlFwA7cFLGmVyd2M6LsA cxFQAEbFSB584mU979BcOrAHLfq1bk5gKIel3-JnWiE_J5ypBpYxW4Hfi71s1LbNohaIw8G3rO4kdW-tR6iLJ9LQSGRxqyc1KQ&smid=url-share

[Chuck Naill]

As dneal is implying, regardless of how vile Trimp and his actions are, if our legislature can't legally stop him from running in 2024, these media events will get his followers extra determined to get him into office.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

His is not an original thought. The question is, do you allow any former president to ignore the rule of law? Anyone thinking that if Trump is given a pass he will slide off into obscurity is a fool. Plus he has a family ready to slither in.

[TSherbs]

I agree with all of this guy's conclusions at the end:

Tangle

https://www.readtangle.com/trump-fbi-search-mar-a-lago/

[Chuck Naill]

:fuck:

[Lloyd]

This sounds like the cry/lie of a desperate man to me... especially since it came several days after the documents were taken.

Trump demands return of seized documents – by order of social media https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/15/trump-demands-return-documents-fbi-truth-social

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

That platform should be rebranded as "Whine Social"

[Chip]

https://i.imgur.com/2rzuOvM.jpg

Screenplay for a cheesy spy flick—

Ex-president steals boxes of top-secret documents, including nuclear design details and operational intelligence plans, from the White House and stashes them in the basement of his golf club/residence.

Saudi "investor" books a suite at the resort.

Ex-president shuts off the security cameras, sneaks down to the basement, and places the nuclear documents in a plain, brown envelope.

He then visits the suite reserved for the Saudi "businessman" and slips the envelope under the mattress.

The Saudi removes the documents and leaves $20 million in large bills. He checks out early.

The ex-president re-enters the suite and takes the cash.

A Russian "businessman" and a Chinese "philanthropist" reserve suites a week in advance.

[Bold2013]

Interesting video.

FBI Reveals Items Found In Trump's Safe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1zup6iAUVs

[Lloyd]

Like religion, many lock into their political beliefs without relying on any proof aside from what they blindly believed when they were young.

"But merely being tradition does not make something worthy, Kadash. We can't just assume that because something is old it is right."
Brandon Sanderson​

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Another limp platitude.

I don't recall having any beliefs concerning Trump when I was young.

I was brought up, by right-wing nut father, member of the John Birch Society, as a raving little conservative.

So— some of us are capable, given experience, and sufficient evidence, of changing our views.

[Lloyd]

Another limp platitude.

I don't recall having any beliefs concerning Trump when I was young.

I was brought up, by right-wing nut father, member of the John Birch Society, as a raving little conservative.

So— some of us are capable, given experience, and sufficient evidence, of changing our views.
The "limp platitude" quote never states that all people act a certain way. It's implication is that some do.
My post was in reference to bold's post directly before mine. I'm fairly sure you knew this, but are just into targeting my posts lately. Enjoy... if doing so brings you joy in these times, I'm glad to oblige.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

New strategy, blame Meadows
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/maggie-haberman-trump-source-blames-meadows-for-not-returning-documents-before-leaving-office/ar-AA10IBUe

From Heather Cox Richardson's blog today.
"Trump has continued to throw out more excuses for his theft of classified documents, recently suggesting his former chief of staff Mark Meadows is at fault for failing to organize a system to send documents to the National Archives and Records Administration and then suggesting that he had withheld the documents because he didn’t trust the “partisan Democrat appointees” who were “releasing thousands of his White House documents to the January 6 Committee in spite of his lawyers’ claims of executive privilege.”

Maggie Haberman at the New York Times broke the news today that Trump’s White House counsel and deputy White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone and Patrick F. Philbin, have talked to the FBI in the last few months about the stolen documents. According to two witnesses, when Philbin tried to get him to return documents to the National Archives and Records Administration, Trump said, “It’s not theirs, it’s mine.”

[Bold2013]

Another limp platitude.

I don't recall having any beliefs concerning Trump when I was young.

I was brought up, by right-wing nut father, member of the John Birch Society, as a raving little conservative.

So— some of us are capable, given experience, and sufficient evidence, of changing our views.

Agreed

[Chuck Naill]

Many get their news from YouTube. All you have to do is search on a video that says what you want to believe and shazam, there it is!!

[dneal]

Many get their news from YouTube. All you have to do is search on a video that says what you want to believe and shazam, there it is!!

Kind of like op-eds at the New York Times? Read Brooks and Heather Cox Richardson, or maybe some David French on occassion; and we know what you believe. Your opinion is someone else's opinion explained to you.

Kind of sad, really.

[Chuck Naill]

I wouldn't expect you to be able to decern the difference between cited sources, investigative reporting with a video you found rummaging YT.

[Chuck Naill]

For equal time, Steve Bannon says those responsible for the raid will be incarcerated. I’m trying to find a YT video. How’s that @dneal?

[Chuck Naill]

What about what George Conway thinks? Wasn’t his spouse affiliated with the former?

He says that the raid is the shortest route to Trump in an orange jump suit!!! How disrespectful…..😂

[Chuck Naill]

And poor, old Rudy. Perhaps he has a YT video @dneal can share

[dneal]

For equal time, Steve Bannon says those responsible for the raid will be incarcerated. I’m trying to find a YT video. How’s that @dneal?

I haven't listened to Bannon since Frontline interviewed him about 2016. I wanted to understand his big picture view. I do, and there's nothing worth listening to after that. Just rhetoric. But - I know what he said. You only know what somebody said he said.

You guys should get some hats so everyone can tell everybody apart. Red hats, pussy hats and pride hats are spoken for. What about the never trumpers? Are there lincoln project hats or something? Is Hillary's "but her emails" hat the blue maga equivalent?

You guys and all these silly narratives and tribes.

Hats would help.

[Lloyd]

For equal time, Steve Bannon says those responsible for the raid will be incarcerated. I’m trying to find a YT video. How’s that @dneal?

I haven't listened to Bannon since Frontline interviewed him about 2016. I wanted to understand his big picture view. I do, and there's nothing worth listening to after that. Just rhetoric. But - I know what he said. You only know what somebody said he said.

You guys should get some hats so everyone can tell everybody apart. Red hats, pussy hats and pride hats are spoken for. What about the never trumpers? Are there lincoln project hats or something? Is Hillary's "but her emails" hat the blue maga equivalent?

You guys and all these silly narratives and tribes.

Hats would help.
I think we're all, yourself included, grown quote predictable to each other. I think one's goal should be to be proud of whatever you believe in, as well as to be open to listen respectfully to the others' perspectives.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

It evident who @dneal listens to.

[Chuck Naill]

We should all want to live in what is true regardless of whether we have all the information or not.

[Chip]

You guys should get some hats so everyone can tell everybody apart. Hats would help.

I'm not here to help.

https://i.imgur.com/xDKEscO.jpg

[Chip]

Oops. Guess I startled you. You forgot your hat. . .

https://i.imgur.com/ILCFVkA.jpg

[TSherbs]

You guys and all these silly narratives and tribes.

And you were the one asking for evidence of your superior attitude. :thumb:

[Lloyd]

You guys should get some hats so everyone can tell everybody apart. Hats would help.

I'm not here to help.

https://i.imgur.com/xDKEscO.jpg
Mission accomplished.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

It evident who @dneal listens to.

You couldn't name them if you tried.

[Lloyd]

It evident who @dneal listens to.

You couldn't name them if you tried.
Beelzebub?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

It evident who @dneal listens to.

You couldn't name them if you tried.
Beelzebub?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

May as well be.

Curiously, Chuck's still religious by nature. He has his orthodoxy and does not suffer it to be questioned. Easier to just declare "heretic", and know the truth.

[Chuck Naill]

Running on empty again I see @dneal.

It needs to be said that the US will not be better off or enjoy living in a nation ruled by Donald Trump. Sure, some minority will when they become new oligarch's, but the majority will not. We should appreciate being able to communicate while we still can.

Those of you continuing to support the former president should think about what you are really supporting, but I am not holding my breath.

Cheney is an attractive choice. I also like Adam Kitzinger, John Kasich, and a few others who might be a public servant operating from a rule of law.

And, anyone that disagrees can comment.

"August 17, 2022
Heather Cox Richardson
8 hr ago
“Last night, my father killed another political dynasty, and that’s the Cheneys. He first killed the Bushes, then he killed the Clintons. Last night he killed the Cheneys.” So Eric Trump, former president Donald Trump’s son, interpreted the primary loss by Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) last night.

He is not wrong that the Republican Party has now been captured by extremists who reject the principles associated with that party. Trump’s statement reflects the reality that today’s MAGA crowd rejects the ideology of Reagan’s Republican Party, which was based in the idea—if not the actual execution—that the government must not interfere with markets. Far from trying to free up markets, Trump and those like him, including Florida governor Ron DeSantis, have used the government to punish businesses that don’t support their political policies and to reward those that do.

Using the government to reward friends and punish enemies is the province of authoritarians like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, who spoke earlier this month in Texas at the Conservative Political Action Conference. MAGAs’ support for such tactics fits, as they have rejected the fundamental principles of American democracy.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution established that Americans have a right to consent to the government under which we live and that we are equal before the law. But today’s MAGA movement is based on the Big Lie that former president Trump won the 2020 election, and its adherents are currently engaged in the attempt to make sure that they can rig elections going forward, establishing a one-party state whose leaders can do as they wish.

And at least part of what they appear to want is the establishment of a state religion that overrides the rights of LGBTQ Americans and takes away women’s rights. Indeed, their vision looks much like that of Orbán, who maintains that secular democracy must be replaced by what he calls “Christian democracy,” or “illiberal democracy.”

While Eric Trump might see this as a triumph, others do not. Edward Luce of the Financial Times observed today: “I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.”

Shocking though that observation was, it was nothing compared to what came next. General Michael Hayden, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, retweeted Luce and commented: “I agree. And I was the CIA Director[.]”

That this movement has dangerous designs on our government got more confirmation today when Jordan Libowitz and Lauren White of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) reported that the Secret Service had notice of a specific threat against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi days before the January 6 attack on the Capitol but didn’t tell the Capitol Police until 5:55 on the afternoon of that day, after the attack had happened.

On December 31 a Parler user posted, “January 6 starts #1776 all over again…Fight for EVERYTHING,” and included Pelosi in a list of “enemies.” Later, the account was more specific about the attack. On the evening of January 6, the Secret Service sent the information along to the Capitol Police with a note: “Good afternoon, The US Secret Service is passing notification to the US Capitol Police regarding discovery of a social media threat directed toward Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”

The Secret Service is under scrutiny because its agents’ texts from the period around the attack were erased from their phones, the phones of Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli were wiped, and the Trump-appointed inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, Joseph Cuffari, neglected to tell Congress of the destruction of evidence for more than a year and has refused to make his staff available to testify about the matter.

But it is not clear that the MAGA attempt to take over the government will stay behind Trump. Today, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has recently been in the news for his defamation of the parents of a victim of the Sandy Hook shooting, announced on his show that he is switching his support to DeSantis. He was a staunch enough Trump supporter that he spoke at the January 5, 2021, rally in Washington, D.C., to fire up the crowd for the next day.

Almost on cue, Trump began to float the idea that he would release the surveillance tape of FBI agents recovering the stolen government documents from his Mar-a-Lago property in what seems to be an attempt to reclaim his base. The argument for releasing the tape is that his supporters will resent the federal officers milling around Trump’s property, feeding the idea he is a victim of political persecution. Other advisors warn that actually seeing just how many boxes of documents, including top secret documents, were recovered, will backfire.

“It’s one thing to read a bunch of numbers on an inventory list, it’s another to see law enforcement agents actually carrying a dozen-plus boxes out of President Trump’s home knowing they probably contain sensitive documents. I don’t see how that helps him,” a person close to Trump told Gabby Orr, Sara Murray, Kaitlan Collins and Katelyn Polantz of CNN. It would fit the usual Trump pattern for him simply to say he is going to release it to generate stories that keep him in the news.

Trump’s supporters’ willingness to find another candidate is likely, in part, a reflection of the legal trouble mounting for the former president.

Today, Trump campaign lawyer Rudy Giuliani testified for six hours before a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, that is investigating Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. Giuliani alleged vote rigging in Georgia even after his theories had been proven fake.

Prosecutors have told Giuliani he is a target of the investigation, meaning it is possible he will be indicted. Ken Frydman, Giuliani’s former press secretary, told CNN yesterday: “He knows he lied for his client, and he knows we all know…. I think, you know, at this point in his life, his goal is to die a free man.”

Tomorrow the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg, will plead guilty to 15 felonies associated with conspiring to avoid payroll taxes on $1.7 million over 15 years by taking pay in the form of school tuition for his grandchildren, a free apartment, a car, and so on. The deal with the Manhattan district attorney’s office lets him off with fines and a minimum of 100 days in jail, a very light sentence. In exchange, Weisselberg will testify against the Trump Organization in its upcoming October trial for related offenses, though not against Trump himself.

This deal seriously weakens the Trump Organization’s legal position in the case but leaves Trump and his family untouched. If the case undercuts the Trump family’s business— its traditional financial base— family members might be hoping to cement a new financial base in the American political system."

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-17-2022?utm_source=email

[sharmon202]

Occasim's Razor.

Oc·​cam's razor | \ ˈä-kəmz-
less commonly Ockham's razor

Definition: a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

William of Occam (also spelled "Ockham") didn't invent the rule associated with his name. Others had espoused the "keep it simple" concept before that 14th-century philosopher and theologian embraced it, but no one wielded the principle (also known as the "law of parsimony") as relentlessly as he did. He used it to counter what he considered the fuzzy logic of his theological contemporaries, and his applications of it inspired 19th-century Scottish philosopher Sir William Hamilton to link Occam with the idea of cutting away extraneous material, giving us the modern name for the principle.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Occam's%20razor

love this, thx. Congrats, few include sources in such threads.

[Chip]

I enjoy these quick research projects which add to my fund of knowledge and (one hopes) augment the understanding of my fellow sufferers.

[dneal]

Running on empty again I see @dneal.

Said right before you post your approved Heather Cox Richardson orthodoxy talking points. You're like one of those George Will disciples.

Still waiting for you to tell me who I listen to...

[Chuck Naill]

Running on empty again I see @dneal.

Said right before you post your approved Heather Cox Richardson orthodoxy talking points. You're like one of those George Will disciples.

Still waiting for you to tell me who I listen to...

Don’t listen/watch, but rather read.

If you disagree with her, explain where she is wrong. I’ve certainly read your Bannon and Dr Nurse posts and explained where they are wrong. You could at least use some of your vast intellect and spend 5 minutes providing a post with some value.

I do like George Will. His book Men and Work was well done. However, I know why you don’t like him. He’s not a Trumpian.

[dneal]

I’ve certainly read your Bannon and Dr Nurse posts and explained where they are wrong.

lol, you've done no such thing. Not even TSherbs could talk sense to you about Dr. Campbell. You suspected him to be a "sinner", talking about the abomination.

[TFarnon]

Actually, depending on the markings, that can make something classified, and highly classified at that. At the Top Secret plus level, even the additional designators are classified. Back in the days of the Army Security Agency, in the 1970s, it was considered high humor to take the classified stamps, tackle someone who was leaving the service or even just moving to another assignment in another location, and stamp the poor sod on every inch of exposed skin. So yeah, an otherwise blank piece of paper at a certain level of classification and additional designators would be highly classified.

[TFarnon]

I was a sincere Libertarian/fiscal Conservative in my teens. Why? Because my parents were Democrats, and pretty permissive overall. I wanted to rebel, oh, how I wanted to rebel! The only way I could really wind my parents up was by being a Republican. Then I grew up and got better.

[dneal]

Actually, depending on the markings, that can make something classified, and highly classified at that. At the Top Secret plus level, even the additional designators are classified. Back in the days of the Army Security Agency, in the 1970s, it was considered high humor to take the classified stamps, tackle someone who was leaving the service or even just moving to another assignment in another location, and stamp the poor sod on every inch of exposed skin. So yeah, an otherwise blank piece of paper at a certain level of classification and additional designators would be highly classified.

No. I once took a picture of a shura between Afghan villagers and a general officer with an iPhone. It was transferred to my personal laptop and burned to a CD-R, which was put in a classified computer and used in a story-board. Long story short, the intel bubbas tried to tell me my phone and laptop had unauthorized classified documents, and would have to be seized and wiped - simply because an unclassified picture made it to a slide deck that was classified overall. I laughed at them.

Bureaucratic procedures within the executive do not limit the power of the executive, where all authorities for the execution of bureaucratic procedures are derived. It doesn't matter what the paper has printed on the header. If the president says it's no longer classified, it's no longer classified; markings be damned. Markings become a bureaucratic admin process for office of legal counsel and other bubbas.

Here is a link to a classified document from the Nixon era (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/INTELLIGENCE%20REPORT%20LEADE%5B16026005%5D.pdf). It was declassified by the CIA and is hosted on their website. The document still has "secret" clearly marked, with only a thin line through the marking. Since we can still see it, it's still classified. Right?

[Lloyd]

Actually, depending on the markings, that can make something classified, and highly classified at that. At the Top Secret plus level, even the additional designators are classified. Back in the days of the Army Security Agency, in the 1970s, it was considered high humor to take the classified stamps, tackle someone who was leaving the service or even just moving to another assignment in another location, and stamp the poor sod on every inch of exposed skin. So yeah, an otherwise blank piece of paper at a certain level of classification and additional designators would be highly classified.

No. I once took a picture of a shura between Afghan villagers and a general officer with an iPhone. It was transferred to my personal laptop and burned to a CD-R, which was put in a classified computer and used in a story-board. Long story short, the intel bubbas tried to tell me my phone and laptop had unauthorized classified documents, and would have to be seized and wiped - simply because an unclassified picture made it to a slide deck that was classified overall. I laughed at them.

Bureaucratic procedures within the executive do not limit the power of the executive, where all authorities for the execution of bureaucratic procedures are derived. It doesn't matter what the paper has printed on the header. If the president says it's no longer classified, it's no longer classified; markings be damned. Markings become a bureaucratic admin process for office of legal counsel and other bubbas.

Here is a link to a classified document from the Nixon era (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/INTELLIGENCE%20REPORT%20LEADE%5B16026005%5D.pdf). It was declassified by the CIA and is hosted on their website. The document still has "secret" clearly marked, with only a thin line through the marking. Since we can still see it, it's still classified. Right?
Either the Intel bubbas need more training or the image wasn't properly marked as (U) in the document.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Powerpoint error, and a label being applied to the slide master; but their logic was just so flawed...

[Chuck Naill]

I’ve certainly read your Bannon and Dr Nurse posts and explained where they are wrong.

lol, you've done no such thing. Not even TSherbs could talk sense to you about Dr. Campbell. You suspected him to be a "sinner", talking about the abomination.

I have a good memory and have no need for Ted to talk sense. You were wrong headed about everything regarding the pandemic, and also Donald Trump. If you would read rather than watch, you could engage your brain. As it is, nonsense is poured and you freely drink. At least if you read, while we might not come to the same conclusions, it would allow you to think before you spout conspiracies.

You've made a habit of vilifying the same people Trump did/does. Now you mention George Will. Before it was Fauci. It is obvious you are a disciple of the fringe including Bannon. I can predict your positions, just like you reaction to the FBI's investigation of Trump's home.

[dneal]

You keep saying I was wrong, but won't say how. Kind of like you say what I read or listen to, but can't name what it actually is.

You've invented a trumpian construct for me, and seek out reinforcing evidence. I mentioned George Will, and Trump did too at some point, so I'm a Trumpian...

Chuck, you're just a different flavor of zealot, rabidly defending your orthodoxy. You need a hat.

[TSherbs]

This article makes sense to me:

Trump's use of the military for himself:

https://www.thebulwark.com/trump-acted-as-though-the-military-swore-an-oath-to-him-personally/

[kazoolaw]

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential
records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion..." (emphasis added)

Worked for docs in sox drawer.
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-08/memorandum%20opinion.pdf
page 10 of opinion

[Chuck Naill]

You keep saying I was wrong, but won't say how. Kind of like you say what I read or listen to, but can't name what it actually is.

You've invented a trumpian construct for me, and seek out reinforcing evidence. I mentioned George Will, and Trump did too at some point, so I'm a Trumpian...

Chuck, you're just a different flavor of zealot, rabidly defending your orthodoxy. You need a hat.

You keep trying to convince yourself you don’t follow Trump. You’re the first one to mentioned George Will. He has been an outspoken critic of Trump. It makes you look like you have an association.

Same with COVID-19. I never recall a single post you made that wasn’t first hatched by a Trump supported. You were against any effort to contain and spouted the same stuff Trump did. His detractors became your enemies. There is an old say that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. In your case, that was never true. Just because someone is a critic of Trump or a supported of the science does not mean you have to take sides. There is nothing wrong with Will, Brooks, or Cox except that they have been critical of Trump.

On the other hand, you’ve posted Bannon and his verifiably false comments as if they merited being repeated.

[Chip]

Bureaucratic procedures within the executive do not limit the power of the executive, where all authorities for the execution of bureaucratic procedures are derived. It doesn't matter what the paper has printed on the header. If the president says it's no longer classified, it's no longer classified; markings be damned.

Where do you dig up this rubbish? Bureaucratic procedures are a foundation of the government.

A bill passed by both houses must be signed by the president to become law. Right?

The same goes for executive orders, treaties, and other legally binding instruments.

By your flawed reckoning, the final repository of a document's status would be the president's memory. :crazy:

[dneal]

Bureaucratic procedures within the executive do not limit the power of the executive, where all authorities for the execution of bureaucratic procedures are derived. It doesn't matter what the paper has printed on the header. If the president says it's no longer classified, it's no longer classified; markings be damned.

Where do you dig up this rubbish? Bureaucratic procedures are a foundation of the government.

A bill passed by both houses must be signed by the president to become law. Right?

The same goes for executive orders, treaties, and other legally binding instruments.

By your flawed reckoning, the final repository of a document's status would be the president's memory. :crazy:

I spent 30 years in a bureaucracy. I'm crystal clear on the difference between doctrine and practice. The left, in this thread, is citing practice (stamping and busywork) laid out in the regulations of the executive branch, is proof that the executive proper must follow said regulations. Otherwise, he broke the law and can't run for president again, they tell us.

This is the second time they have tried this exact thing. The second time. For fuck's sake, they tried to impeach him twice and failed. They've been up his ass over taxes for decades. Rachel Maddow told us she had him. 3 years and a Muller investigation into Russian collusion, only to find out team blue paid for the whole thing.

But now they have him! Mar A Lago Raid that's now not a raid!!!

Political theater. Political Jerry Springer, and you dolts drink it up.

The fact that this is even a news story and that you chimps are bickering about it is the desired response. There's another news story with a red flavor being told somewhere else for those that wear red hats.

The problem isn't that you guys need hats. The problem is that you deny that you're wearing them.

[Chuck Naill]

Thirty years folding sheet in a female owned laundry.

[TSherbs]

Political Jerry Springer, and you dolts drink it up.

And to think, you once feigned ignorance about your superior attitude in your posts.

[dneal]

Political Jerry Springer, and you dolts drink it up.

And to think, you once feigned ignorance about your superior attitude in your posts.

Am I wrong?

How long are you guys going to keep the Benny Hill / Jan 6 shit-show going? The thread is regularly at the top of the sub.

Why is there no Biden laptop thread? There's loads of material on that now. It's even in the British papers. You know, another "conspriacy theory" that 50 intelligence professionals debunked as russian propaganda. Obvious evidence of the actual shit we've been incessantly hearing that Don's Sr and Jr have been doing?

You guys love the shit show. The Q-Anon shaman and all of it. Every bonehead that gets a fine for Jan 6 you guys post and gloat over. About that superiority complex...

You're no different than the Maga folks, but just won't admit you have a hat too.

[Chuck Naill]

You’re a MAGA who didn’t choose to vote!! Lol!!

Yes, we are different and also difficult!!

[TSherbs]

Am I wrong?

You pretended not to recognize your arrogant tone and posts. You asked to have them pointed out to you. I am happy to oblige.

[Lloyd]

Is it surprising that in our highly fractured society, where the media are forced to feed us 1440 minutes per day (due to the internet, our attention spans have contracted to just 60 seconds) of "interesting" news updates that we want to see (or else we'll choose another source), that our "truths" are highly biased/distorted?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[kazoolaw]

Bureaucratic procedures within the executive do not limit the power of the executive, where all authorities for the execution of bureaucratic procedures are derived. It doesn't matter what the paper has printed on the header. If the president says it's no longer classified, it's no longer classified; markings be damned.

Where do you dig up this rubbish? Bureaucratic procedures are a foundation of the government.

A bill passed by both houses must be signed by the president to become law. Right?

The same goes for executive orders, treaties, and other legally binding instruments.

By your flawed reckoning, the final repository of a document's status would be the president's memory. :crazy:

Actually, no, the President does not have to sign a bill for it to become law. That's the concept of overriding a presidential veto.

A treaty requires approval by 2/3 vote of the Senate.

An Executive Order is ii used by the President. Remember Biden's EO on access to abortion?

And on that note, might the term "in his sole discretion" cited from an actual court case apply, and resolve the issue?

[kazoolaw]

"Order is issued by the President

[Chip]

Thirty years pushing a desk? No wonder you came out twisted.

It's sad when someone can lie without recognizing it.

That's a characteristic you have in common with Trump.

[dneal]

Political Jerry Springer, and you dolts drink it up.

And to think, you once feigned ignorance about your superior attitude in your posts.

Am I wrong?.You pretended not to recognize your arrogant tone and posts. You asked to have them pointed out to you. I am happy to oblige.

At least you answered a question. Not the one I asked, but at least it was a clever (both cogent and subtly snide) answer.

I'm not claiming superiority though. I don't know why you get stuck on this. Look at the responses I deal with ferchrissakes.



You’re a MAGA who didn’t choose to vote!! Lol!!

Yes, we are different and also difficult!!



Thirty years pushing a desk? No wonder you came out twisted.

It's sad when someone can lie without recognizing it.

That's a characteristic you have in common with Trump.


Those responses are just social media, juvenile bullshit. Modern muck-raking. They're not red with a MAGA label, but those responses are from people who wear hats.

[dneal]

Is it surprising that in our highly fractured society, where the media are forced to feed us 1440 minutes per day (due to the internet, our attention spans have contracted to just 60 seconds) of "interesting" news updates that we want to see (or else we'll choose another source), that our "truths" are highly biased/distorted?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

It wasn't that long ago that people would listen to an hour or two of All Things Considered. Garrison Keilor with tales (and songs) of Lake Wobegon.

Now it's a constant barrage of headlines. A 30 minute cycle repeated for 24 hours. Noise. It's even worse than that though.

Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity's opinions of the 24 hour nonsense? Every day for a couple of hours a day? Reading opinion pieces that are just a text version of left and right partisan screed? Watching the bickering and burns in real time on Twitter? This is what people do with their time now?

Chuck mocks it as "You Tube" stuff, but what else are you going to feed your head with. For heaven's sake don't spend an hour listening to a Ph.D lecturer explain a recently published medical paper and then reason through implications. If there's no room in your head for that, it might be due to your hat.

My wife and I rarely watch TV. We don't listen to talk radio. We listen to podcasts and chat about the topic as it goes along. Sometimes YouTube has the entire version, and you can watch them instead. There are 15 minute ones, 30, an hour and up to 3 or 4 hour podcasts. Trip to St Louis on a Saturday to see the Van Gogh "experience"? Podcasts. 3 acres to mow? Podcast. In the kitchen? (we've been into pickling things recently...) Podcast.

Recently I listened to:

Lex Fridman talked with former KGB spy Jack Barsky for over three hours. Amazing.

Allie Ward has a podcast called "ologies". 50 minutes of talking with an expert on a whole hosts of subjects (and what the corresponding "ology" is). Lutrinology (otters), zymology (beer), corvid thanatology (crow funerals - and it's interesting as hell).

Strategist Peter Ziehan on Triggernometry with Konstantin Kisin (although I think his talk with Dan Crenshaw was better).

Popular Science's weekly The Weirdest Thing I Learned This Week. Latest episode was about: Human echolocation, extreme pogo sticking, and elephants evading poachers.


Say the word "ivermectin" here and Chuck chimpscreams "horse de-wormer". It's because of his hat. Point it out and TSherbs thinks it's acting superior.

The world is insane.

[TSherbs]

Political Jerry Springer, and you dolts drink it up.

And to think, you once feigned ignorance about your superior attitude in your posts.

Am I wrong?.You pretended not to recognize your arrogant tone and posts. You asked to have them pointed out to you. I am happy to oblige.


I'm not claiming superiority though.

So, you meant to say that *we* are all "dolts" lapping up the Kool-Aid that is fed us? You meant to say that *you* wear a "hat", too? You meant to say that you are as "sad" as Chuck is, or anyone else whom you have called such? You actually meant to include yourself in all the snears that you throw about here as you provoke the "idiots" (as you have labeled the "hat"-wearing liberals around here)?

The only reason that I am going on about this is that you have repeatedly broadcast how sincere and open and free of labels and bias you are compared to the rest of us. THAT is part of your superiority complex. And when Chip pointed it out to you (one of the most self-evident truths he has stated here), you denied it. When I seconded it, you said that that was news to you and you asked for evidence. Maybe you did not actually mean the question (a form of insincerity).

And yes, obviously you get bullshit from other posters from time to time. What do you expect? You ask for it, and you have told us that you like and seek the friction from the "dolts" and "idiots" and "hat wearers."

Before you start conflating my tone with yours: I have never stated that I am not arrogant. I have stated that I *am,* but I try to avoid it in my writing (sometimes unsuccessfully). I have never claimed to be free of bias. I have not claimed to be anything other than a liberal (an unhappy one, but still). My trigger peeve is lying and general disingenuousness. Your posts smell of hypocrisy, and you have posted dozens of personal smears toward other posters (I am not guilt-free in this regard, either). And of course I hate Donald Trump and all of his sycophantic ennablers. I want them all prosecuted. I am WAY out in the open about all of this. I have scorned certain MAGA followers, for sure. Not their character, not their love or parenting or sense of civic duty or pride, just their JUDGMENT ABOUT TRUMP'S LIES. As I said, lying is my trigger, and Trump has been an inveterate liar (I followed him back in his NYC days). He's been a con-man from the start, and I scorn the minds that have fallen for his con. I have been open about this, too.

Why I post about the Jan 6 convictions and pleas is that that event was an American tragedy, and the FBI said that they would work for years to get every criminal that they could. I was pleased with that resolve, and I have been keeping some track. I am pleased that they are keeping their word. I see nothing wrong with that, and couldn't give a shit where it bumps a thread (why that would irritate you is beyond me). Now they just need to get the con-man who sat in his dining room watching the events unfold that he intentionally set in motion.

[TSherbs]

Is it surprising that in our highly fractured society, where the media are forced to feed us 1440 minutes per day (due to the internet, our attention spans have contracted to just 60 seconds) of "interesting" news updates that we want to see (or else we'll choose another source), that our "truths" are highly biased/distorted?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

It wasn't that long ago that people would listen to an hour or two of All Things Considered. Garrison Keilor with tales (and songs) of Lake Wobegon.

Now it's a constant barrage of headlines. A 30 minute cycle repeated for 24 hours. Noise. It's even worse than that though.

Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity's opinions of the 24 hour nonsense? Every day for a couple of hours a day? Reading opinion pieces that are just a text version of left and right partisan screed? Watching the bickering and burns in real time on Twitter? This is what people do with their time now?

Chuck mocks it as "You Tube" stuff, but what else are you going to feed your head with. For heaven's sake don't spend an hour listening to a Ph.D lecturer explain a recently published medical paper and then reason through implications. If there's no room in your head for that, it might be due to your hat.

My wife and I rarely watch TV. We don't listen to talk radio. We listen to podcasts and chat about the topic as it goes along. Sometimes YouTube has the entire version, and you can watch them instead. There are 15 minute ones, 30, an hour and up to 3 or 4 hour podcasts. Trip to St Louis on a Saturday to see the Van Gogh "experience"? Podcasts. 3 acres to mow? Podcast. In the kitchen? (we've been into pickling things recently...) Podcast.

Recently I listened to:

Lex Fridman talked with former KGB spy Jack Barsky for over three hours. Amazing.

Allie Ward has a podcast called "ologies". 50 minutes of talking with an expert on a whole hosts of subjects (and what the corresponding "ology" is). Lutrinology (otters), zymology (beer), corvid thanatology (crow funerals - and it's interesting as hell).

Strategist Peter Ziehan on Triggernometry with Konstantin Kisin (although I think his talk with Dan Crenshaw was better).

Popular Science's weekly The Weirdest Thing I Learned This Week. Latest episode was about: Human echolocation, extreme pogo sticking, and elephants evading poachers.


Say the word "ivermectin" here and Chuck chimpscreams "horse de-wormer". It's because of his hat. Point it out and TSherbs thinks it's acting superior.

The world is insane.

I don't give you shit about youTube, dneal. You can spend all the time you want watching it and listening to podcasts. Maybe if you stopped mentioning so often the breadth of your "education" on topics, you would get less pushback. Chuck wants to give you shit about YouTube. I don't. Maybe you should just ignore him on that topic. Or, you can just keep calling him an ignorant chimp.

[dneal]

Political Jerry Springer, and you dolts drink it up.

And to think, you once feigned ignorance about your superior attitude in your posts.

Am I wrong?.You pretended not to recognize your arrogant tone and posts. You asked to have them pointed out to you. I am happy to oblige.


I'm not claiming superiority though.

So, you meant to say that *we* are all "dolts" lapping up the Kool-Aid that is fed us? You meant to say that *you* wear a "hat", too? You meant to say that you are as "sad" as Chuck is, or anyone else whom you have called such? You actually meant to include yourself in all the snears that you throw about here as you provoke the "idiots" (as you have labeled the "hat"-wearing liberals around here)?

The only reason that I am going on about this is that you have repeatedly broadcast how sincere and open and free of labels and bias you are compared to the rest of us. THAT is part of your superiority complex. And when Chip pointed it out to you (one of the most self-evident truths he has stated here), you denied it. When I seconded it, you said that that was news to you and you asked for evidence. Maybe you did not actually mean the question (a form of insincerity).

And yes, obviously you get bullshit from other posters from time to time. What do you expect? You ask for it, and you have told us that you like and seek the friction from the "dolts" and "idiots" and "hat wearers."

Before you start conflating my tone with yours: I have never stated that I am not arrogant. I have stated that I *am,* but I try to avoid it in my writing (sometimes unsuccessfully). I have never claimed to be free of bias. I have not claimed to be anything other than a liberal (an unhappy one, but still). My trigger peeve is lying and general disingenuousness. Your posts smell of hypocrisy, and you have posted dozens of personal smears toward other posters (I am not guilt-free in this regard, either). And of course I hate Donald Trump and all of his sycophantic ennablers. I want them all prosecuted. I am WAY out in the open about all of this. I have scorned certain MAGA followers, for sure. Not their character, not their love or parenting or sense of civic duty or pride, just their JUDGMENT ABOUT TRUMP'S LIES. As I said, lying is my trigger, and Trump has been an inveterate liar (I followed him back in his NYC days). He's been a con-man from the start, and I scorn the minds that have fallen for his con. I have been open about this, too.

Why I post about the Jan 6 convictions and pleas is that that event was an American tragedy, and the FBI said that they would work for years to get every criminal that they could. I was pleased with that resolve, and I have been keeping some track. I am pleased that they are keeping their word. I see nothing wrong with that, and couldn't give a shit where it bumps a thread (why that would irritate you is beyond me). Now they just need to get the con-man who sat in his dining room watching the events unfold that he intentionally set in motion.

There's all sorts of screed across the landscape. Alex Jones, Keith Olberman. It varies widely across several spectrums. Most of it is gossip-column level discussion. "Aliens ate my baby" nonsense. People eat that shit up. Pointing out that it's still crap is not asserting some position of superiority. P.T. Barnum ran a circus of freaks and curiosities and people ate that shit up too. It's still a circus.

Trump whiners are just as Twitter-obnixous as the orange one himself. He thrives one it, they thrive on it, you thrive on it. Again, look at Chuck and Chip's responses. Look at that screed you posted from the bulwark or whatever. "After all, this is the man who disparaged the late John McCain and prisoners of war..." the writer smugly states. Your idea of where condescension resides is perhaps incorrect.

The Atlantic has lost it's freaking mind with Trump and the banal. So has the Wash Post, the NYT. Smug gossip about nothing. P.T. Barnum's political circus. Literal modern muck-raking.

Dolts lap that shit up. Acknowledging that out is no claim of superiority. Just pointing out that people arguing that Trump had russian strippers pee on him in a Moscow hotel room (condescendingly), is about as ludicrious as 'aliens ate my baby' or a guy in a buffalo hat was the most serious threat to democracy since hitler.

If you lap that up - and you do share it frequently - you might be a dolt. You're gawking at the political clown show.

[dneal]

I don't give you shit about youTube, dneal...

blah blah blah.

I was responding to Lloyd's thought, not the bulwark or wherever else you get your daily what to think update from.

[TSherbs]

Political Jerry Springer, and you dolts drink it up.

And to think, you once feigned ignorance about your superior attitude in your posts.

Am I wrong?.You pretended not to recognize your arrogant tone and posts. You asked to have them pointed out to you. I am happy to oblige.


I'm not claiming superiority though.

So, you meant to say that *we* are all "dolts" lapping up the Kool-Aid that is fed us? You meant to say that *you* wear a "hat", too? You meant to say that you are as "sad" as Chuck is, or anyone else whom you have called such? You actually meant to include yourself in all the snears that you throw about here as you provoke the "idiots" (as you have labeled the "hat"-wearing liberals around here)?

Nope. As I suspected. You never include yourself. You just ratchet up the invective toward others. True to form. <check>

[Chuck Naill]

Political Jerry Springer, and you dolts drink it up.

And to think, you once feigned ignorance about your superior attitude in your posts.

Am I wrong?.You pretended not to recognize your arrogant tone and posts. You asked to have them pointed out to you. I am happy to oblige.

At least you answered a question. Not the one I asked, but at least it was a clever (both cogent and subtly snide) answer.

I'm not claiming superiority though. I don't know why you get stuck on this. Look at the responses I deal with ferchrissakes.



You’re a MAGA who didn’t choose to vote!! Lol!!

Yes, we are different and also difficult!!



Thirty years pushing a desk? No wonder you came out twisted.

It's sad when someone can lie without recognizing it.

That's a characteristic you have in common with Trump.


Those responses are just social media, juvenile bullshit. Modern muck-raking. They're not red with a MAGA label, but those responses are from people who wear hats.

That could hardly be true since I am not on social media. I do read and think if that provides a clue where the comment you quoted was derived. I learned that you were a MAGA and didn't vote from your posts here.

As usual you allowed your mouth to overload your butt again. So, you were an office worker? Lots of time on your hands to watch YouTube.

[TSherbs]

Just pointing out that people arguing that Trump had russian strippers pee on him in a Moscow hotel room (condescendingly), is about as ludicrious as 'aliens ate my baby' or a guy in a buffalo hat was the most serious threat to democracy since hitler.

You're the one typing clownshit now. We're gawking at you, dude. You've become the show.

[Chuck Naill]

Actually no one knows if Trump participated in Golden Showers in Russia. The question should be, would I be surprised if he had.

[Chip]

Years ago, a favorite prof asked me to help her son, Hal, who'd come out of rehab in bad shape. According to him, he'd been involved in some sort of arms smuggling deal in SE Asia, on behalf of the CIA, where he'd caught an exotic disease and come home blind. He was definitely blind. Generally affable, but a terror when it came to politics, so I avoided the subject. He'd go on wild rants and —unable to pick up visual cues— would assume you were dead set against him and end up in a sputtering fury.

His wife, Virginia, was apparently schizophrenic or the like. She complained that Hal had me implanting devices in the walls to control her thoughts, etc. They'd get into vicious fights, throw stuff, bash each other with whatever came to hand, and generally raise hell. One would call the cops on the other. It was most often Virginia who got locked up for a bit, deemed crazy, drugged to oblivion, and sent home.

My job, funded by the Dept. of Family Services, was to convert an old barn on the property to board horses, which was intended to become Hal's means of support. So I tried to concentrate on that: felling old poplars and ripping the trunks into planks for flooring (poplar is soft and doesn't splinter like conifers, so it's good for stable flooring). After I did the floor and framed new stalls, feeder bunks, etc. I started on the corrals. The problem was having to go to the house every half-hour or so to help Hal cook a meal or talk Virginia out of stabbing him with a kitchen knife or stop her from busting holes in the sheetrock to remove the devices.

It was impossible to reason with them and worse to challenge or argue. After a few months, I was a nervous wreck. Told Hal's mom that I thought he would never be able to manage horses in a boarding stable and the whole thing was a really bad idea, and I was quitting.

The upshot is I don't like messing with people who are delusional, deeply invested in their own concocted reality, and aggressively argumentative.

Been there, done that. . .

[Lloyd]

The upshot is I don't like messing with people who are delusional, deeply invested in their own concocted reality, and aggressively argumentative.

Been there, done that. . .
Then, why do you come to this subforum?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

The upshot is I don't like messing with people who are delusional, deeply invested in their own concocted reality, and aggressively argumentative.

Been there, done that. . .
Then, why do you come to this subforum?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

He has a similar hat.

[Lloyd]

The upshot is I don't like messing with people who are delusional, deeply invested in their own concocted reality, and aggressively argumentative.

Been there, done that. . .
Then, why do you come to this subforum?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

He has a similar hat.
Are you the Mad Hatter?
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220820/f256644fe5eeec0f2b585622be5e09f0.jpg

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

The upshot is I don't like messing with people who are delusional, deeply invested in their own concocted reality, and aggressively argumentative.

Been there, done that. . .
Then, why do you come to this subforum?

I don't place you in that category. I do find your vagueness and lame jokes (why are city folk obsessed with the idea of screwing farm animals?) annoying, but think you're very bright and contribute something valuable.

The hissing matches are incidental. I post quite a few links and excerpts that I think ought to be read (and are probably ignored by those who might learn the most from them).

But, having experienced crazy, I'm well able to recognize it.

[TSherbs]

Actually no one knows if Trump participated in Golden Showers in Russia. The question should be, would I be surprised if he had.

Chuck, you get interested in strange things.

[Lloyd]

The upshot is I don't like messing with people who are delusional, deeply invested in their own concocted reality, and aggressively argumentative.

Been there, done that. . .
Then, why do you come to this subforum?

I don't place you in that category. I do find your vagueness and lame jokes (why are city folk obsessed with the idea of screwing farm animals?) annoying, but think you're very bright and contribute something valuable.

The hissing matches are incidental. I post quite a few links and excerpts that I think ought to be read (and are probably ignored by those who might learn the most from them).

But, having experienced crazy, I'm well able to recognize it.
Did you ever read "The Goat or Who is Sylvia" by Edward Albee? As silly as the story line sounds, I found it an amazingly powerful look at what is/isn't moral (and many other things).



Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

That's a play. Have I read the script?

No.

[Lloyd]

That's a play. Have I read the script?

No.
Yes.. it's a play. I highly recommend reading it.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Actually no one knows if Trump participated in Golden Showers in Russia. The question should be, would I be surprised if he had.

Chuck, you get interested in strange things.

I am thorough whether particularly interested or not. With all of the obvious ignorance often spouted here regarding Trump, it pays to go back and look at his life, as his brother's daughter did, in order to understand the person for which the US is having to endure today. Therefore, when Trump says he declassified the documents, we have probable cause to not believe. Although, as I responded to @dneal's attempt to support Trump yet against, had the documents truly been declassified, the boxes would no longer have the markings and there would be a paper trail from the National Archives.

[Chip]

Yes. it's a play. I highly recommend reading it.

I saw the 1966 film of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf with Taylor and Burton. While the clever title made it popular, I thought it was a nasty piece of work.

So I guess, admitting my limited knowledge, I'm not keen on Albee's view of human nature.

The only scripts I read these days are Shakespeare comedies. Love the wordplay and wit.

To nod at the original topic, I wonder what sort of play might be written about Donald, Melania, Ivanka, Jared, Rudy, and the rogue's gallery of hangers-on?

A vicious farce?

[Lloyd]

Not being keen on Albee's view shouldn't make you avoid it. You shouldn't only read what what supports your view if you want to grow.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Lloyd, not all reading is for self-improvement. Sometimes we want challenge, sometimes we want to coast. Sometimes we want frisson, other times a long exhale. Albee is a bitter, caustic pill. Not all want or need his brand of medicine: it leaves some feeling all the more sick.

[TSherbs]

Yes. it's a play. I highly recommend reading it.

I saw the 1966 film of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf with Taylor and Burton. While the clever title made it popular, I thought it was a nasty piece of work.

So I guess, admitting my limited knowledge, I'm not keen on Albee's view of human nature.

The only scripts I read these days are Shakespeare comedies. Love the wordplay and wit.

To nod at the original topic, I wonder what sort of play might be written about Donald, Melania, Ivanka, Jared, Rudy, and the rogue's gallery of hangers-on?

A vicious farce?

Puts me in mind of Toole's Confederacy of Dunces.

Or Kosinsky's Being There.

Or Dr. Strangelove.

Or, in the case of the MAGA transformation of the GOP: Ionesco's The Rhinoceros.

Or Pirandello: Six Family Members in Search of a Soul

Or for a novel setting, perhaps the saga of the illustrious Snopes family in Faulkner's Yawknapatawpha county.

[TFarnon]

Actually, depending on the markings, that can make something classified, and highly classified at that. At the Top Secret plus level, even the additional designators are classified. Back in the days of the Army Security Agency, in the 1970s, it was considered high humor to take the classified stamps, tackle someone who was leaving the service or even just moving to another assignment in another location, and stamp the poor sod on every inch of exposed skin. So yeah, an otherwise blank piece of paper at a certain level of classification and additional designators would be highly classified.

No. I once took a picture of a shura between Afghan villagers and a general officer with an iPhone. It was transferred to my personal laptop and burned to a CD-R, which was put in a classified computer and used in a story-board. Long story short, the intel bubbas tried to tell me my phone and laptop had unauthorized classified documents, and would have to be seized and wiped - simply because an unclassified picture made it to a slide deck that was classified overall. I laughed at them.

Bureaucratic procedures within the executive do not limit the power of the executive, where all authorities for the execution of bureaucratic procedures are derived. It doesn't matter what the paper has printed on the header. If the president says it's no longer classified, it's no longer classified; markings be damned. Markings become a bureaucratic admin process for office of legal counsel and other bubbas.

Here is a link to a classified document from the Nixon era (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/INTELLIGENCE%20REPORT%20LEADE%5B16026005%5D.pdf). It was declassified by the CIA and is hosted on their website. The document still has "secret" clearly marked, with only a thin line through the marking. Since we can still see it, it's still classified. Right?
Either the Intel bubbas need more training or the image wasn't properly marked as (U) in the document.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Exactly. Open source is not classified. Working open sources into a briefing can qualify the briefing as a whole as classified, because it (should) involve analysis of the sources in question.

As for declassification, a strike-through should be (and is, IIRC) sufficient with proper documentation to render a document marked only as classified (e.g. SECRET or TOP SECRET) declassified. The Nixon document meets that standard. However, if the document was designated SECRET or TOP SECRET plus a codeword, the codeword in and of itself is classified. That's how a blank piece of paper can be classified merely because it has been stamped as such.

[Lloyd]

Lloyd, not all reading is for self-improvement. Sometimes we want challenge, sometimes we want to coast. Sometimes we want frisson, other times a long exhale. Albee is a bitter, caustic pill. Not all want or need his brand of medicine: it leaves some feeling all the more sick.
I totally agree. I wasn't suggesting that he only read difficult things. I was suggesting that he reads some difficult things, namely this play. Have you read this play, "The Goat"?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Nope. Never heard of it, actually (that I can recall).

[Lloyd]

You can find it free on line. It's not very long. The subject matter can be disturbing if taken literally (this site has a summary and critical analysis- http://edwardalbeesociety.org/works/the-goat-or-who-is-sylvia/) to some, but I found the messages powerful, the writing very engaging, and the characters believable.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Not being keen on Albee's view shouldn't make you avoid it. You shouldn't only read what what supports your view if you want to grow.

Shakespeare doesn't "support my view."

What a pompous twit you can be.

[Bold2013]

You can find it free on line. It's not very long. The subject matter can be disturbing if taken literally (this site has a summary and critical analysis-http://edwardalbeesociety.org/works/the-goat-or-who-is-sylvia/) to some, but I found the messages powerful, the writing very engaging, and the characters believable.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I just read it. Painful but had a good ending.

[Lloyd]

You can find it free on line. It's not very long. The subject matter can be disturbing if taken literally (this site has a summary and critical analysis-http://edwardalbeesociety.org/works/the-goat-or-who-is-sylvia/) to some, but I found the messages powerful, the writing very engaging, and the characters believable.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I just read it. Painful but had a good ending.
Thank you for taking the time, sir.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

What a pompous twit you can be.

It's one of my superpowers.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Bold2013]

You can find it free on line. It's not very long. The subject matter can be disturbing if taken literally (this site has a summary and critical analysis-http://edwardalbeesociety.org/works/the-goat-or-who-is-sylvia/) to some, but I found the messages powerful, the writing very engaging, and the characters believable.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I just read it. Painful but had a good ending.
Thank you for taking the time, sir.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I can see your point of suggesting it as a means to discuss morality from a different vantage.

[Lloyd]

You can find it free on line. It's not very long. The subject matter can be disturbing if taken literally (this site has a summary and critical analysis-http://edwardalbeesociety.org/works/the-goat-or-who-is-sylvia/) to some, but I found the messages powerful, the writing very engaging, and the characters believable.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I just read it. Painful but had a good ending.
Thank you for taking the time, sir.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I can see your point of suggesting it as a means to discuss morality from a different vantage.
Thank you. I have to admit that my stereotyping mind thought that you would be the last member of this subforum who would be willing to read this, especially with such an open mind. I underestimated your willingness to understand other's views and overestimated my lack of bias.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Or, in the case of the MAGA transformation of the GOP: Ionesco's The Rhinoceros.

https://i.imgur.com/8e2yBNJ.jpg

I've actually seen it onstage. Trés weird.

It is, perhaps, more relevant to the present political situation than The Goat. Can't imagine reading the script.

[Lloyd]

Nope. Never heard of it, actually (that I can recall).
I don't think you'd regret reading it.... it's not that long.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I did read it and regret that I did. I tried to see some moral value but failed. Hopefully you are satisfied that everyone including the goat are adults and consenting...LOL!!

[TSherbs]

Wow, this statement is a doozie:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fay-xciVUAAKvk-?format=jpg&name=large

[TSherbs]

Twitter is having a field-day with that work of logico-legal art.

[Lloyd]

I did read it and regret that I did. I tried to see some moral value but failed. Hopefully you are satisfied that everyone including the goat are adults and consenting...LOL!!
I'm sorry that you feel that way.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Different strokes for different folks, Lloyd. Just seemed a very odd and unnecessary topic to use.

[Lloyd]

I see it as a good choice. Prior to reading, most of us would view the man's act as reprehensible and yet accept the wife's response as acceptable.... but why is this? After reading, one might not still feel this way. In post #112, I gave a link to an analysis on the play including Albee's comments.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

The analysis I read was an otherwise successful person who cannot understand that his actions have damaged his family. They also commented the wife was reacting more to her paradigms than the goat.

Some call this work absurd. I agree.

My point is that Albee had other ways to communicate his opinions besides the one he chose.

How is this related to Trump, or was it ever?

[Lloyd]

The analysis I read was an otherwise successful person who cannot understand that his actions have damaged his family. They also commented the wife was reacting more to her paradigms than the goat.

Some call this work absurd. I agree.

My point is that Albee had other ways to communicate his opinions besides the one he chose.

How is this related to Trump, or was it ever?
It doesn't tie into the Trump thread. Chip mentioned sex with animals, I had just been on a different thread discussing the lack of a defined morality, and so I asked Chip, who's a writer, if he had read this play.
If Albee took a more traditional storyline, the punch would have been absent. It's that punch that, for many, brings about a change of perspective.
Sorry if the altered course of the thread bothered you.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

After you made a joke about me screwing cows, I asked why you city people were obsessed with the idea of sex with livestock.

Your response was to urge me to read a script about a guy who humps a goat, which his wife subsequently kills.

To quote Wilde: If one likes that sort of thing, then it's precisely the sort of thing one likes.

Back to the topic: Did the FBI find any goats at Mar-A-Lago?

Among the pigs, that is. . .

[Lloyd]

After you made a joke about me screwing cows, I asked why you city people were obsessed with the idea of sex with livestock.

The truth hurts, huh.
We don't get the same opportunities that you country folk do. I guess we're jealous.


Your response was to urge me to read a script about a guy who humps a goat, which his wife subsequently kills.

Great extremely literal reading (did you read it at all before commenting on it? ). In the critical analysis I linked to, it says

In*Stretching My Mind, Edward Albee comments on*The Goat: “You may, of course, have received the misleading information that the play is about bestiality—more con than pro.* Well, bestiality is*discussed*during the play (as is flower arranging) but it is a generative matter rather than the ‘subject.’* The play is about love, and loss, the limits of our tolerance and who, indeed, we really are.”[11]* Indeed, while bestiality is one of the many topics addressed in Albee’s play, the playwright’s main objective is more aligned with imagining ourselves “subject to circumstances outside our own comfort zones.”[12]* In an interview with Charlie Rose focused on*The Goat’s 2002 New York premiere, Albee stated, “Imagine what you can’t imagine.* Imagine that, all of a sudden, you found yourself in love with a Martian, in love with something you can’t conceive of.* I want everybody to be able to think about what they can’t imagine and what they have buried deep as being intolerable and insufferable.* I want them to just think freshly and newly about it.”[13]* In this play, as in all of Albee’s plays, there is a larger message beyond just the literal interpretation of the plot.




Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

The analysis I read was an otherwise successful person who cannot understand that his actions have damaged his family. They also commented the wife was reacting more to her paradigms than the goat.

Some call this work absurd. I agree.

My point is that Albee had other ways to communicate his opinions besides the one he chose.

How is this related to Trump, or was it ever?
It doesn't tie into the Trump thread. Chip mentioned sex with animals, I had just been on a different thread discussing the lack of a defined morality, and so I asked Chip, who's a writer, if he had read this play.
If Albee took a more traditional storyline, the punch would have been absent. It's that punch that, for many, brings about a change of perspective.
Sorry if the altered course of the thread bothered you.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

He could have used a teenage girl or something of a similar taboo for a 50 year old man.

Okay, so I’ve been trying to figure out how this relates to Trump…lol! No problem, Lloyd.

[Lloyd]

Would the wife cutting the head off of a teenage girl had the same ramifications? Would a typical affair left a strong impact?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Would the wife cutting the head off of a teenage girl had the same ramifications? Would a typical affair left a strong impact?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I think so. Cutting off the head of a teenager would always have more of an effect. I don’t know what a typical affair even means. Unless you have an agreement for an open relationship, your bound to get lots of drama.

Sometimes an artist or famous writer can do or say something like this and get rave reviews. I’ll say this, had I posted something like this, I doubt you’d have reacted the same.

[Lloyd]

In post #117, you'll notice that Bold was able to see why I posted it. However, I apologize if it bothered you.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

In post #117, you'll notice that Bold was able to see why I posted it. However, I apologize if it bothered you.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Ahh, conversations here about literature at fpgeeks... Don't you just love them? Maybe we should start in on some of the grotesque stories of the Old Testament, or the Brothers Grimm.

Or we could get back to the Mar-a-Lago grotesqueries. Take your pick?

[Chip]

Albee's rather strained explanation of his play arouses the same distaste I often feel toward conceptual art.

What a writer or artist intends a work to mean is not necessarily what I take from it.

That is, part of real growth is not being bound by an imposed set of values, be they those of an overweening playwright or those of a would-be dictator.

My Irish part takes a thoughtful sip of his pint and observes: Jasus! What a terrible shock to the poor goat!

[TSherbs]

Albee's rather strained explanation of his play arouses the same distaste I often feel toward conceptual art.

Where do you draw the line between these works (progressing toward the more conceptual/experimental as you move from left to right):

Dubliners----Portrait of the Artist---Ulysses---Finnegan's Wake

[Chip]

Where do you draw the line between these works (progressing toward the more conceptual/experimental as you move from left to right):

Dubliners----Portrait of the Artist---Ulysses---Finnegan's Wake

Having read all of them, I think you lack an understanding of what I mean, and is commonly meant, by conceptual art.

"Conceptual art, also referred to as conceptualism, is art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic, technical, and material concerns. Some works of conceptual art, sometimes called installations, may be constructed by anyone simply by following a set of written instructions.[1] This method was fundamental to American artist Sol LeWitt's definition of conceptual art, one of the first to appear in print:

'In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art.'"[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art

Joyce moves from a mastery of conventional structure toward a more spontaneous and unrestricted sampling of life, both as a stream of consciousness and in the involuntary associations and wordplay that come and go as flashes in our awareness. His execution— driven by experience and observation rather than ideas, and by a bone-deep feeling for language— is in no way perfunctory and is thus the opposite of conceptual art.

[Lloyd]

Do you feel that the Albee play is a conceptual art piece?


"Good writers define reality; bad ones merely restate it. A good writer turns fact into truth; a bad writer will, more often than not, accomplish the opposite."

Edward Albee



Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Where do you draw the line between these works (progressing toward the more conceptual/experimental as you move from left to right):

Dubliners----Portrait of the Artist---Ulysses---Finnegan's Wake

Having read all of them, I think you lack an understanding of what I mean, and is commonly meant, by conceptual art.

"Conceptual art, also referred to as conceptualism, is art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic, technical, and material concerns. Some works of conceptual art, sometimes called installations, may be constructed by anyone simply by following a set of written instructions.[1] This method was fundamental to American artist Sol LeWitt's definition of conceptual art, one of the first to appear in print:

'In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art.'"[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art

Joyce moves from a mastery of conventional structure toward a more spontaneous and unrestricted sampling of life, both as a stream of consciousness and in the involuntary associations and wordplay that come and go as flashes in our awareness. His execution— driven by experience and observation rather than ideas, and by a bone-deep feeling for language— is in no way perfunctory and is thus the opposite of conceptual art.

So, you like and appreciate all of those novels? I've never been willing to put the work in to finish Finnegan's. Too much for me. Portrait is my favorite of that bunch. I was spellbound by it when I read it. But I was 20 at the time....

[Chuck Naill]

Do you feel that the Albee play is a conceptual art piece?


"Good writers define reality; bad ones merely restate it. A good writer turns fact into truth; a bad writer will, more often than not, accomplish the opposite."

Edward Albee



Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I was watching the Ken Burns series on Heminway. He created a fantasy for himself and then had a hard time living up to it according to Burns. How can reality be defined by a writer who lives in a fantasy world he created for himself. Maybe better is, some writers can create reality.

I am more drawn to history and nonfiction. I remember reading several books on Lincoln with several perspectives provided.

BTW, I was not bothered, but this is a discussion forum. That Bold understood is not relevant. I rarely agree with his opinions but am very pleased he is here. He adds to the demographics that makes the forum interesting.

[Chip]

Dubliners is still my favorite, especially "The Dead." Portrait is excellent. Joyce has a special knack for inhabiting his characters and speaking in their voices. I like Ulysses and have read it a couple times. Finnegan's Wake is like Irish malt whiskey. Lovely stuff, but I can take in only so much at one sitting.

A recent novel you might like is Nora, an account of Joyce's life through the eyes of Nora Barnacle, his muse and wife, by Nuala O'Connor.

https://i.imgur.com/I9v0u7C.jpg

I'm more interested in this sort of discourse than in arguing about Trump and crimes. But I'll cease the littery chatter and let it revert to the usual pissing match.

Trump's present cadre of lawyers and mouthpieces (e.g. John Solomon) don't seem to be able to locate their arses with both hands and a bright light.

[TSherbs]

"The Dead" is a perfect story. A polished diamond.

[TSherbs]

How can reality be defined by a writer who lives in a fantasy world he created for himself.


Luigi Pirandello once commented on how he would often sit at his family dinner table and talk to the characters in his plays as he was working on them, which his family became used to. He said that the characters wrote the plays, not he. He was very serious (although perhaps not 100% literal). I think that in the realm of art and genius, there are no rules about the limits of the imagination and how things get written (or painted or composed) from fantasy and/or reality. The geniuses often don't make any such distinction. Some writers are very pedestrian in their approach; others are astral.

[Chip]

Perhaps the skill I prize most in a writer of fiction is the ability to inhabit characters, rather than manipulate them for effect.

A book I read years ago, that has stayed with me, is On Moral Fiction by John Gardner.

A quote:

". . .in the best of Albee's plays, we catch, I think, hints of the propagandistic falsification which first took center stage in The Death of Bessie Smith, hints of the ugliness and pain that will later become Albee trademarks, and hints of the hollow profundity we find in so much of Albee's later work." (p. 58)

On age 61 is a more crushing estimate, which for reasons of length, I won't reproduce. But as far as disliking Albee's work, I'm certainly not alone.

[Lloyd]

“Art,” said Picasso, “is a lie that makes us realize truth.”

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

The full quote provides context.
"“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

[TSherbs]

The full quote provides context.
"“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

Yes, it's like the lie of all language. It's the finger that points us to the truth, but it isn't the truth itself.

[Chuck Naill]

The full quote provides context.
"“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

Yes, it's like the lie of all language. It's the finger that points us to the truth, but it isn't the truth itself.
People’s ability to point to truth can only come from the well of truth they possess. Otherwise, it’s just a repetition of a theory.

I was reading an opinion piece by the singer songwriter Carol King calling for the preservation of our national forests. She referred to her home as a cabin. https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/inside-carole-kings-luxury-idaho-ranch/story?id=44237919
Sure looks like wood to me!! Lol😂

This reminded me of the problem rural Americans have with the costal elites.

[TSherbs]

The full quote provides context.
"“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

Yes, it's like the lie of all language. It's the finger that points us to the truth, but it isn't the truth itself.
People’s ability to point to truth can only come from the well of truth they possess.

Of course. Even four-year-olds have access to truth, and speak it plainly at times.

[Chip]

The poet is a liar who always speaks the truth.

—Jean Cocteau

[Lloyd]

The poet is a liar who always speaks the truth.

—Jean Cocteau
At the very least, the truth-sayer is lying about being a poet.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

This illustrates my point. We believe nonsense because someone famous says it.

[Lloyd]

This illustrates my point. We believe nonsense because someone famous says it.
I don't. For good or bad, most mathematicians are developed to question everything. I don't agree or disagree based on who says something.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

This illustrates my point. We believe nonsense because someone famous says it.
I don't. For good or bad, most mathematicians are developed to question everything. I don't agree or disagree based on who says something.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I’m. It a mathematician and I question.

[Chuck Naill]

Gulliani is going to say he was depressed as a defense.

[TSherbs]

This illustrates my point. We believe nonsense because someone famous says it.

Kinda like quotes from the Bible.

[TSherbs]

The poet is a liar who always speaks the truth.

—Jean Cocteau

Tim O'Brien would agree.

[Chuck Naill]

This illustrates my point. We believe nonsense because someone famous says it.

Kinda like quotes from the Bible.
Goes without posting, Ted.

[Chuck Naill]

I felt like Robert Frost told the truth. I still do!

[Lloyd]

"People like theater that is safe, generally speaking — things that are easy, that are not too deeply troubling. In other words, people want to go to the theater and waste their time."
Edward Albee



Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

What a puffed-up self-righteous wanker.

What troubles me is that anyone bothers to sit through his plays.

[Lloyd]

What a puffed-up self-righteous wanker.

What troubles me is that anyone bothers to sit through his plays.
How much of his work have you read or seen? Given the strength of your convictions, I assume you're not just assessing his work based on the Taylor/Burton movie and the online comments of others.

Have you seen what movies have the highest ticket sales and which TV shows bring in the most viewers? Is it the shows and movies than can be change one's opinions (for the better) of themselves, others, the planet?
Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

The upshot is I don't like messing with people who are delusional, deeply invested in their own concocted reality, and aggressively argumentative.

Been there, done that. . .
Then, why do you come to this subforum?

I don't place you in that category. I do find your vagueness and lame jokes (why are city folk obsessed with the idea of screwing farm animals?) annoying, but think you're very bright and contribute something valuable.

The hissing matches are incidental. I post quite a few links and excerpts that I think ought to be read (and are probably ignored by those who might learn the most from them).

But, having experienced crazy, I'm well able to recognize it.
Did you ever read "The Goat or Who is Sylvia" by Edward Albee? As silly as the story line sounds, I found it an amazingly powerful look at what is/isn't moral (and many other things).



Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I've read the play now. I am not sure that it is an examination of what is or isn't moral (or what should or shouldn't be moral). It seems to me to be more about the rupture that relationship trauma puts on families and marriages. It seems only incidentally about breaking moral taboo.

[Lloyd]

The upshot is I don't like messing with people who are delusional, deeply invested in their own concocted reality, and aggressively argumentative.

Been there, done that. . .
Then, why do you come to this subforum?

I don't place you in that category. I do find your vagueness and lame jokes (why are city folk obsessed with the idea of screwing farm animals?) annoying, but think you're very bright and contribute something valuable.

The hissing matches are incidental. I post quite a few links and excerpts that I think ought to be read (and are probably ignored by those who might learn the most from them).

But, having experienced crazy, I'm well able to recognize it.
Did you ever read "The Goat or Who is Sylvia" by Edward Albee? As silly as the story line sounds, I found it an amazingly powerful look at what is/isn't moral (and many other things).



Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I've read the play now. I am not sure that it is an examination of what is or isn't moral (or what should or shouldn't be moral). It seems to me to be more about the rupture that relationship trauma puts on families and marriages. It seems only incidentally about breaking moral taboo.
Interesting...Thank you for taking the time.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

I've read the play now. I am not sure that it is an examination of what is or isn't moral (or what should or shouldn't be moral). It seems to me to be more about the rupture that relationship trauma puts on families and marriages. It seems only incidentally about breaking moral taboo.
Interesting...Thank you for taking the time.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

:rockon:

[Chuck Naill]

What we have learned from the redacted affidavit is that indeed classified information at the highest, most sensitive nature was present in a non-secure beach resort that might have or could result in human loss of life and a compromised US security. The stickers were on the containers.

Can we or should we assume what Trump meant to do by holding onto this information? Did he mean to sell them for personal gain, hold Americans hostage, punish us for not voting for him, or other insidious reasons?

[Lloyd]

You've got to be kidding me...
US investigates fake heiress who infiltrated Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/27/fake-heiress-infiltrates-mar-a-lago-trump

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Classified status aside, the documents are US government property and Trump stole them, in direct violation of the law.

He's on record saying they belong to him, which is false.

[Lloyd]

Kinzinger: Republicans ‘hypocritical’ for defending Trump over taking classified material

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/28/kinzinger-republicans-hypocritical-defend-trump-classified-material

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Reminds me of Trump. “ Force always attracts men of low morality” Albert Einstein

[TSherbs]

Lindsay Graham says that there will be "riots in the streets" if Trump is indicted.

So what? America has seen plenty of this before. Bring it on. I'd love to see if Lindsay would get out in the street with them.

[TSherbs]

And I wonder if Trump will suggest that the police just "shoot some of them in the legs."

[Chip]

https://i.imgur.com/99uocNe.jpg

Verily, I say unto thee, that thou shall shootest in their legs the descendants of Cain, unto the last generation.

[Chuck Naill]

Apparently Trump is able to use PAC $ to pay for his many legal expenses.

[Chuck Naill]

Response by DOJ to Trump's request...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.41.1_1.pdf

[Chip]

New legal filings paint Trump as a flailing liar surrounded by lackeys

Lloyd Green
Wed 31 Aug 2022 11.09 EDT

As a first-time presidential candidate, Donald Trump repeatedly demanded that Hillary Clinton be sent to jail. “Lock her up” emerged as a battle cry for the 45th president and his fans. He also pledged that his presidency would properly handle the nation’s secrets.

“In my administration, I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information,” he intoned at a 2016 rally in North Carolina. “No one will be above the law.” As promises go, this one aged badly – much like his commitment to release his tax returns.

On Tuesday night, the government filed its 36-page opposition to the ex-reality-show host’s demand that a special master be appointed. (A special master is an independent mediator appointed to go through documents and determine which may be protected by privilege.)

Trump’s gambit backfired, however. Once again, he looks like a liar. Beyond that, his lawyers became his lackeys. Christina Bobb meet William Barr.

In early June, Trump and Bobb, Trump’s attorney and a former marine, delivered to the government a packet of documents in a sealed folder. A certificate signed by Robb attested to the fact that “any and all responsive documents accompany this certification”.

Apparently not. Instead, the government subsequently “developed evidence” that “efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation”. Who was involved in the conspiracy is an unanswered question.

Regardless, it is now official: Trump will be on the midterm ballot even if his name does not appear. The upcoming congressional elections won’t be a normal referendum on Joe Biden’s presidency. Instead, 2022 will sound a lot like a rerun of 2020. A once anticipated red tsunami is now looking more like a “puddle”.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/31/trump-legal-filings-liar-lackeys?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[dneal]

All a lovely example of the political shit-show some find so enthralling. Muck-raking for it's own sake.

The absurd levels of pettiness and almost desperation are comical. Now they have Trump because some of the documents he said, in answer to a subpoena, were kept in a storage area, were found on his office desk during the raid? He therefore obstructed justice because they were on a desk instead of a storage area?

Ridiculous as that is, it's got more meat on it than the Jan 6 side-show some seem to relish.

[Lloyd]

All a lovely example of the political shit-show some find so enthralling. Muck-raking for it's own sake.

The absurd levels of pettiness and almost desperation are comical. Now they have Trump because some of the documents he said, in answer to a subpoena, were kept in a storage area, were found on his office desk during the raid? He therefore obstructed justice because they were on a desk instead of a storage area?

Ridiculous as that is, it's got more meat on it than the Jan 6 side-show some seem to relish.
Why the hell were such classified documents located in a non-secure location for so long without concern by our ex-prezzo? Even if it were a mistake on his part, he should have rectified the situation STAT once notified. I only worked in the spook business (defense contractor) for ≈20+years and I'd NEVER do that. I knew how to handle such info on all situations, daily and emergency, and why. We took mandatory annual training lessons on this.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

The photo I saw the documents were laying on the carpeted floor next to the curtains. Adjacent were a box of framed Time magazine covers. And, the documents were clearly labeled.

[Lloyd]

Documents at Mar-a-Lago Were Moved and Hidden as U.S. Sought Them, Filing Suggests

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/us/politics/trump-mar-a-lago-documents.html

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Trump just admitted he knew there were classified documents in his office, a place where frequent guests enter. He blamed the FBI for throwing the documents on the floor which clearly shows the classifications of those documents. He said his lawyers were told to wait outside.

"“There seems to be confusion as to the ‘picture’ where documents were sloppily thrown on the floor and then released photographically for the world to see, as if that’s what the FBI found when they broke into my home. Wrong! They took them out of cartons and spread them around on the carpet….”

Trump

"His lawyer Alina Habba then went onto the Fox News Channel to complain about the photo and said, “I’m somebody who has been in his office…. I do have firsthand knowledge…. I have never, ever, seen that…. That is not the way his office looks…. He has guests frequently there.” His office had classified information in it, and his lawyer just said he entertains guests there. This is an intelligence nightmare. "
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-31-2022?utm_source=email

[dneal]

All a lovely example of the political shit-show some find so enthralling. Muck-raking for it's own sake.

The absurd levels of pettiness and almost desperation are comical. Now they have Trump because some of the documents he said, in answer to a subpoena, were kept in a storage area, were found on his office desk during the raid? He therefore obstructed justice because they were on a desk instead of a storage area?

Ridiculous as that is, it's got more meat on it than the Jan 6 side-show some seem to relish.
Why the hell were such classified documents located in a non-secure location for so long without concern by our ex-prezzo? Even if it were a mistake on his part, he should have rectified the situation STAT once notified. I only worked in the spook business (defense contractor) for ≈20+years and I'd NEVER do that. I knew how to handle such info on all situations, daily and emergency, and why. We took mandatory annual training lessons on this.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

How do you know what classification a document had, and where it was stored at? Just speculating based on mainstream media reports?

As for the rest, the President is not a defense contractor. Contractor rules do not apply to that office.

[Chuck Naill]

Look at the photo? The classifications are obvious.

[Chuck Naill]

Did you look at the photo? The classifications are obvious.

[Lloyd]

All a lovely example of the political shit-show some find so enthralling. Muck-raking for it's own sake.

The absurd levels of pettiness and almost desperation are comical. Now they have Trump because some of the documents he said, in answer to a subpoena, were kept in a storage area, were found on his office desk during the raid? He therefore obstructed justice because they were on a desk instead of a storage area?

Ridiculous as that is, it's got more meat on it than the Jan 6 side-show some seem to relish.
Why the hell were such classified documents located in a non-secure location for so long without concern by our ex-prezzo? Even if it were a mistake on his part, he should have rectified the situation STAT once notified. I only worked in the spook business (defense contractor) for ≈20+years and I'd NEVER do that. I knew how to handle such info on all situations, daily and emergency, and why. We took mandatory annual training lessons on this.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

How do you know what classification a document had, and where it was stored at? Just speculating based on mainstream media reports?

As for the rest, the President is not a defense contractor. Contractor rules do not apply to that office.
Is that office a Closed/Secured area? I don't mean to the civilian level, but to the world of governmental/DOD standards.
Are you implying that an EX-President has the right to treat TS+ documents as they wish?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

All a lovely example of the political shit-show some find so enthralling. Muck-raking for it's own sake.

The absurd levels of pettiness and almost desperation are comical. Now they have Trump because some of the documents he said, in answer to a subpoena, were kept in a storage area, were found on his office desk during the raid? He therefore obstructed justice because they were on a desk instead of a storage area?


Ridiculous as that is, it's got more meat on it than the Jan 6 side-show some seem to relish.
Why the hell were such classified documents located in a non-secure location for so long without concern by our ex-prezzo? Even if it were a mistake on his part, he should have rectified the situation STAT once notified. I only worked in the spook business (defense contractor) for ≈20+years and I'd NEVER do that. I knew how to handle such info on all situations, daily and emergency, and why. We took mandatory annual training lessons on this.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

How do you know what classification a document had, and where it was stored at? Just speculating based on mainstream media reports?

As for the rest, the President is not a defense contractor. Contractor rules do not apply to that office.
Is that office a Closed/Secured area? I don't mean to the civilian level, but to the world of governmental/DOD standards.
Are you implying that an EX-President has the right to treat TS+ documents as they wish?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I didn't imply anything. Where do you get this shit?

There is a question to the substantiation of your assertion about what Trump did or did not do, which you ignored.

No one said anything in the quoted post about what an ex-president has the right to do, just that your personal example as a contractor is irrelevant.

A sitting president, where 100% of the Article II constitutional power is vested, may declare a document no longer classified. This is his complete defense. The tedious, pedantic argument is that he didn't jump through some administrative hoop, and completely ignores that all bureaucrats in the executive, from the cabinet on down, derive their authority from the constitutional authority of the president.

But go with your stupid false equivalencies and examples - which are simply more unsubstantiated assertions presented as ridiculous rhetorical questions.

[Lloyd]

Why are you bringing up what a sitting president can do (although, a worthy sitting president wouldn't declassify a TS+ document without altering the markings and distributing which information is no longer classified as the impact to related documents would be impacted), Trump is NOT an sitting president.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

He may be one of several to declassify had he been the one to classify. The problem for Trump is he wasn’t the one that made the information classified. The act of classifying is more straightforward than declassification.

For a declassification to be possible, the information would have had to become no longer relevant.

And, Trump couldn’t have waved his magic wand and made the information unclassified. Plus his term ended January 20, 2021 at 11:59 am.

[Lloyd]

He may be one of several to declassify had he been the one to classify. The problem for Trump is he wasn’t the one that made the information classified. The act of classifying is more straightforward than declassification.

For a declassification to be possible, the information would have had to become no longer relevant.

And, Trump couldn’t have waved his magic wand and made the information unclassified. Plus his term ended January 20, 2021 at 11:59 am.
Actually, the sitting president can... he shouldn't if the release of the information would induce major risks. If he intentionally declassified what shouldn't be declassified, impeachment hearings would be justified.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

Here’s the photo.
Why the photo of top secret documents held by Trump matters - https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/1120323225/why-the-dojs-photo-of-top-secret-documents-held-by-trump-matters

[Chuck Naill]

He may be one of several to declassify had he been the one to classify. The problem for Trump is he wasn’t the one that made the information classified. The act of classifying is more straightforward than declassification.

For a declassification to be possible, the information would have had to become no longer relevant.

And, Trump couldn’t have waved his magic wand and made the information unclassified. Plus his term ended January 20, 2021 at 11:59 am.
Actually, the sitting president can... he shouldn't if the release of the information would induce major risks. If he intentionally declassified what shouldn't be declassified, impeachment hearings would be justified.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

As I stated, and not me guessing, had he been the one to initiate the classification. All of this is readily available.

[Lloyd]

He may be one of several to declassify had he been the one to classify. The problem for Trump is he wasn’t the one that made the information classified. The act of classifying is more straightforward than declassification.

For a declassification to be possible, the information would have had to become no longer relevant.

And, Trump couldn’t have waved his magic wand and made the information unclassified. Plus his term ended January 20, 2021 at 11:59 am.
Actually, the sitting president can... he shouldn't if the release of the information would induce major risks. If he intentionally declassified what shouldn't be declassified, impeachment hearings would be justified.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

As I stated, and not me guessing, had he been the one to initiate the classification. All of this is readily available.
I don't think so... however, after poking around on line, you may be right.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Why are you bringing up what a sitting president can do (although, a worthy sitting president wouldn't declassify a TS+ document without altering the markings and distributing which information is no longer classified as the impact to related documents would be impacted), Trump is NOT an sitting president.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

He knows this. Dneal is just fucking with you. That's what he does, and then calls people fools and idiots for responding to him.

[Chuck Naill]

He may be one of several to declassify had he been the one to classify. The problem for Trump is he wasn’t the one that made the information classified. The act of classifying is more straightforward than declassification.

For a declassification to be possible, the information would have had to become no longer relevant.

And, Trump couldn’t have waved his magic wand and made the information unclassified. Plus his term ended January 20, 2021 at 11:59 am.
Actually, the sitting president can... he shouldn't if the release of the information would induce major risks. If he intentionally declassified what shouldn't be declassified, impeachment hearings would be justified.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

As I stated, and not me guessing, had he been the one to initiate the classification. All of this is readily available.
I don't think so... however, after poking around on line, you may be right.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I read it here, https://www.lawfareblog.com/classification-status-trumps-mar-lago-documents

[Chuck Naill]

Didn’t you guys see the photo. The cover pages demonstrate the documents he had were classified. He screwed up and admitted it. This federal judge in Florida is playing an interesting game of cat and mouse.

[Lloyd]

Didn’t you guys see the photo. The cover pages demonstrate the documents he had were classified. He screwed up and admitted it. This federal judge in Florida is playing an interesting game of cat and mouse.
More like Pussy & Rat. The judge is a pussy to fear Trump, and Trump is a Rat if there ever was one.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

A sitting president, where 100% of the Article II constitutional power is vested, may declare a document no longer classified. This is his complete defense. The tedious, pedantic argument is that he didn't jump through some administrative hoop, and completely ignores that all bureaucrats in the executive, from the cabinet on down, derive their authority from the constitutional authority of the president.

Since you can't keep up, the classified status of some documents is a compelling reason for the search, BUT. . .

They belong to the US government and were never in any sense the personal property of Donald Trump.

He stole them from the White House and then lied, and told his lawyers to lie, about their whereabouts.

Check?

[TSherbs]

Didn’t you guys see the photo. The cover pages demonstrate the documents he had were classified. He screwed up and admitted it. This federal judge in Florida is playing an interesting game of cat and mouse.

Yes, I did see it. The whole country has seen it and read what Trump has admitted about the documents. The only thing left is what to do in legal response, which will be tricky. Malfeseance has occurred, perhaps just a form of negligence initially, but then the stalling and obfuscation from Mar-a-lago took on another level of legal culpability. And now the discovery of classified and sensitive documents in more than one location of the estate contributes to further malfeseance and culpability. I'm not sure what the consequences will be. That is all that is still to be determined at this point. Trump will try every legal delay and avoidance maneuver that he can, but this all won't matter in the long run (just like with the state voting results in 2020). All that will matter is what the DOJ decides to do.

[Chip]

All that will matter is what the DOJ decides to do.

Given the results of the midterm election. The Republican crooks in the senate let Trump off the hook more than once. No doubt they are planning to do it again.

[TSherbs]

All that will matter is what the DOJ decides to do.

Given the results of the midterm election. The Republican crooks in the senate let Trump off the hook more than once. No doubt they are planning to do it again.

What could congress do about a criminal indictment (if it were to occur)?

[Chip]

If they gain control of either house, they will pursue all sorts of phony investigations and work (perhaps via the budget) to undermine the DOJ, FBI, and any other threats to Trump.

[Lloyd]

As Trump (allegedly) barely read documents while in office, I'm surprised he'd take them after he was dethroned ...unless they were to show off to his cronies.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

If they gain control of either house, they will pursue all sorts of phony investigations and work (perhaps via the budget) to undermine the DOJ, FBI, and any other threats to Trump.

jeez

[Chuck Naill]

The unredacted office photo.

[kazoolaw]

If they gain control of either house, they will pursue all sorts of phony investigations and work (perhaps via the budget) to undermine the DOJ, FBI, and any other threats to Trump.

Well, they've got a couple impeachments to catch up on.

[kazoolaw]

Why are you bringing up what a sitting president can do (although, a worthy sitting president wouldn't declassify a TS+ document without altering the markings and distributing which information is no longer classified as the impact to related documents would be impacted), Trump is NOT an sitting president.

Lloyd, I'm sure you understand dneal's point that a sitting President can declassify documents. Trump was a sitting President and could have declassified documents during his term, up to his last day in office apparently.

Can you point us to a written standard for how that's done? I've not seen one. Producing a list of which documents were declassified and when would move the discussion beyond "did to," "did not."

[Lloyd]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-declassified-declassification-usually-031803971.html
and from justice.gov:

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STANDARD DECLASSIFICATION MARKINGS?

The intent of uniform, conspicuous and standard markings is to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information. If standard declassification markings are not affixed to declassified records uncertainty is created for cleared holders of the record as to its classification status.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Dneal doesn't have a point.

I'll repeat this one last time: as a criminal matter it doesn't matter why he took the documents. Or if some were classified (which would be an aggravating circumstance).

It doesn't matter if he thought, lacking any written evidence or substantive proof, that he had declassified some of them (which did not entitle him to take them out of the White House and treat them as personal property.)

What matters is that he stole documents that by any definition belong to the US Government, for his personal use, and when asked to surrender them, after a long delay, complied only in part, while his lawyers (on his instructions, no doubt) lied in a signed statement to the FBI.

Does that clear this up for you?

[kazoolaw]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-declassified-declassification-usually-031803971.html
and from justice.gov:

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STANDARD DECLASSIFICATION MARKINGS?

The intent of uniform, conspicuous and standard markings is to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information. If standard declassification markings are not affixed to declassified records uncertainty is created for cleared holders of the record as to its classification status.




Thanks Lloyd. Some of this sounds like a "standard of practice" as opposed to a bright line test. Which isn't uncommon but leaves room for endless wrangling: "uncertainty " indeed.

[Lloyd]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-declassified-declassification-usually-031803971.html
and from justice.gov:

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STANDARD DECLASSIFICATION MARKINGS?

The intent of uniform, conspicuous and standard markings is to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information. If standard declassification markings are not affixed to declassified records uncertainty is created for cleared holders of the record as to its classification status.




Thanks Lloyd. Some of this sounds like a "standard of practice" as opposed to a bright line test. Which isn't uncommon but leaves room for endless wrangling: "uncertainty " indeed.

At the least, it implies that he didn't follow what most with a clearance would call very important protocols meant to protect the country. At worst, it would imply grounds for charges. Either way, it should mean that he shouldn't have access to classified documents in the future.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Bold2013]

If they gain control of either house, they will pursue all sorts of phony investigations and work (perhaps via the budget) to undermine the DOJ, FBI, and any other threats to Trump.

Probably will after seeing how it was used by the authoritarian leftists (and not just to undermine but also employ politically).

[Chuck Naill]

Wow, you guys can't see the forest for the trees. The photo, the real one, clearly shows cover pages with classified designations. Why would Trump or anyone declassify a document still containing top secret information? Why would someone not have removed the cover pages?

How many times did Trump classify a document? Most reports say he was not interested in daily briefings.

[TSherbs]

If they gain control of either house, they will pursue all sorts of phony investigations and work (perhaps via the budget) to undermine the DOJ, FBI, and any other threats to Trump.

Well, they've got a couple impeachments to catch up on.


you don't even mean this statement

[TSherbs]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-declassified-declassification-usually-031803971.html
and from justice.gov:

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STANDARD DECLASSIFICATION MARKINGS?

The intent of uniform, conspicuous and standard markings is to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information. If standard declassification markings are not affixed to declassified records uncertainty is created for cleared holders of the record as to its classification status.




Thanks Lloyd. Some of this sounds like a "standard of practice" as opposed to a bright line test. Which isn't uncommon but leaves room for endless wrangling: "uncertainty " indeed.

At the least, it implies that he didn't follow what most with a clearance would call very important protocols meant to protect the country. At worst, it would imply grounds for charges. Either way, it should mean that he shouldn't have access to classified documents in the future.


Hey, we all know that Trump did not "de-classify" any of that shit. Come on. This may never be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," but we all know that this slime-bucket did no such act of declassification. He did not give a shit about any of that kind of protocol, especially as he was leaving the office of the presidency in such an aggrieved and faux-victimized state. Garland is in a tough spot. He knows that Trump will not stop transgressing boundaries until he is made to by the law. He brags about how he is bigger than the law, and when he isn't, then the law is wrong. Trump wrote in his book that he made the mistake only once of admitting that he had been wrong. He then writes that it is a necessary mantra never to admit an error or apologize. So Garland will have to decide whether this negligence on Trump's part (and subsequent delay and obfuscation) is finally enough to press criminal charges. I say go for it, let's get to the riots and deal with them, and then move on once we have cauterized the country of this Maga maniac. The GOP brought this fuckface of a disease into the White House. The carnage is on their hands as we try to rid the country of the scourge.

[Chuck Naill]

I'd like to know how many times Trump classified information while in office. Then, how would he know what information was no longer needing to be classified?

This is a man who pleaded the 5th 400 times recently regarding his business.

How can people, some of them here, be so brain washed?

[TSherbs]

There were so many people foretelling this kind of outcome if Trump took on the presidency. We were told repeatedly that we were being political and negative and that Trump would rise to the station of the office and that wiser minds would temper his injudiciousness.

How'd that turn out?

Someone said, right, that democracy always gives you the type of president that you deserve. Damn. Remember how weak the GOP primary slate of choices was? It was a losers' row. Well, you got your winner, didn't you? He's just been such a fine example of leadership, wisdom, diplomacy, and ethics.

[TSherbs]

I suppose that as an Independent who did not participate in the primaries (we had an antiquated caucas system in 2016), I should apologize for not helping to put forward a stronger candidate than Hilary Clinton who could have/woud have defeated DTrump. I am sorry.

[Chuck Naill]

There were so many people foretelling this kind of outcome if Trump took on the presidency. We were told repeatedly that we were being political and negative and that Trump would rise to the station of the office and that wiser minds would temper his injudiciousness.

How'd that turn out?

Someone said, right, that democracy always gives you the type of president that you deserve. Damn. Remember how weak the GOP primary slate of choices was? It was a losers' row. Well, you got your winner, didn't you? He's just been such a fine example of leadership, wisdom, diplomacy, and ethics.

Like J.D. Vance?

[Chuck Naill]

I suppose that as an Independent who did not participate in the primaries (we had an antiquated caucas system in 2016), I should apologize for not helping to put forward a stronger candidate than Hilary Clinton who could have/woud have defeated DTrump. I am sorry.

Brooks is talking about the unthinkable Sanders/Trump ticket.

I forgive you, but 3 million more voters wanted her than Trump. The problem is the system, not your lack of participation. At least you chose to vote unlike one troll here.

[Chuck Naill]

“Empty folders” 🫢

[Chuck Naill]

“In all, the list said, the F.B.I. retrieved 18 documents marked as top secret, 54 marked as secret, 31 marked as confidential, and 11,179 government documents or photographs without classification markings.”

[Chip]

Did he mark the empty folders SOLD?

[dneal]

Dneal doesn't have a point.

I'll repeat this one last time: as a criminal matter it doesn't matter why he took the documents. Or if some were classified (which would be an aggravating circumstance).

It doesn't matter if he thought, lacking any written evidence or substantive proof, that he had declassified some of them (which did not entitle him to take them out of the White House and treat them as personal property.)

What matters is that he stole documents that by any definition belong to the US Government, for his personal use, and when asked to surrender them, after a long delay, complied only in part, while his lawyers (on his instructions, no doubt) lied in a signed statement to the FBI.

Does that clear this up for you?

The thing you ignore is that a sitting president has absolute and final classification authority, to include declassification. Biden possesses this power now. Obama had it before Trump. etc...

If Trump, while exercising that Article II constitutional executive power at any point during his term, declared those documents no longer classified; then markings and other "criminal" nonsense do not apply.

It's an absolute defense. Bickering about pictures and folders is political Jerry Springer.

enjoy.

I'll pass.

[dneal]

71939

[Lloyd]

William Barr, on Fox, says there's no legitimate reason for classified docs to be at Mar-a-Lago and doubts Trump declassified
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/02/politics/barr-trump-documents-fox/index.html

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

We all doubt Trump ever declassified that shit.

And no one here is asserting that he did. Only dneal makes the irrelevant point that presidents have the power to declassify (which no one denies).

I wonder if we should start granting that Trump also pardoned some additional people on the way out the door. You know, he turned around and shouted it into an empty room. After all, he has the absolute power to pardon.

Does a paper declassify if a president shouts it in a forest but no one is there to hear it?

[Chip]

Most of what you declare hoaxes were actually true, for instance:

Russia collusion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/13/all-of-the-known-times-the-trump-campaign-met-with-russians/

"Fine people:" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-defends-both-sides-charlottesville-comments-with-a-new-falsehood_n_5cc30c9de4b08846403d585d

Whitmer plot: https://nypost.com/2022/08/23/two-men-convicted-in-gov-gretchen-whitmer-kidnapping-plot/

Mocking disabled reporter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA

I could cover the whole list. But the larger question is why, given access to the truth, facts, and reality in general, you prefer to spout lies, bullshit, and stupid propaganda?

[Lloyd]

Given dneal's claim of being neither Dem nor GOP, it's startling to me how often he doubts any Democrats claims and yet is open to all manner of GOP conspiracies.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

Given dneal's claim of being neither Dem nor GOP, it's startling to me how often he doubts any Democrats claims and yet is open to all manner of GOP conspiracies.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Word.

It's cuz he's full of shit. He's just here to taunt libs. He has said so, repeatedly.

[Lloyd]

Given dneal's claim of being neither Dem nor GOP, it's startling to me how often he doubts any Democrats claims and yet is open to all manner of GOP conspiracies.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Word.

It's cuz he's full of shit. He's just here to taunt libs. He has said so, repeatedly.
He says he goes to right wing forums and posts from the other perspective. I have a hard time believing that when doing so he supports what he's writing. He's stated that he's right-leaning but, based on his postings, he seems to lean more than that tower in Pisa.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Lloyd]

William Barr, on Fox, says there's no legitimate reason for classified docs to be at Mar-a-Lago and doubts Trump declassified
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/02/politics/barr-trump-documents-fox/index.html

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™
A guess a nerve was touched...

Trump lashed out at Bill Barr after the former attorney general said the DOJ was justified in raiding Mar-a-Lago
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lashes-out-bill-barr-comments-mar-a-lago-raid-2022-9

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Most of what you declare hoaxes were actually true, for instance:

Russia collusion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/13/all-of-the-known-times-the-trump-campaign-met-with-russians/

"Fine people:" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-defends-both-sides-charlottesville-comments-with-a-new-falsehood_n_5cc30c9de4b08846403d585d

Whitmer plot: https://nypost.com/2022/08/23/two-men-convicted-in-gov-gretchen-whitmer-kidnapping-plot/

Mocking disabled reporter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA

I could cover the whole list. But the larger question is why, given access to the truth, facts, and reality in general, you prefer to spout lies, bullshit, and stupid propaganda?

So you believe all the hoaxes on the list? Cool. Now do Hunter's laptop.

What's amazing is that you, the king of the "shoot the messenger" fallacy, cited Huffpost to a supposed Trumper? You might as well cite Buzzfeed's publication as the "proof" the Steele Dossier wasn't a hoax.

[dneal]

Given dneal's claim of being neither Dem nor GOP, it's startling to me how often he doubts any Democrats claims and yet is open to all manner of GOP conspiracies.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

You guys do love your unsubstantiated claims. Feel free to list all these GOP conspiracies I am supposedly open to. Are they the 15 in the meme above?

The one where Hillary and her campaign paid for the Steele Dossier? You know, the document that prompted the Muller investigation? The one where the FBI orchestrated the Whitmer kidnapping? The one where the media suppressed information on Hunter's laptop?

Dems keep getting caught in their BS claims. That's all the GOP "conspiracies" are. An accusation that Dems are lying and the whole thing is bullshit. Turns out the Dems do a lot of lying and exaggerating about petty, bizarre things - like the disabled reporter. Dueling YouTubes for Chip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgaC0leEb68). An orange person does that too. Lying and exaggerating about petty, bizarre things. I guess Dems hate Trump because he's stealing their schtick.

You should listen to Coffee with Scott Adams.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

“For things to reveal themselves to us, we need to be ready to abandon our views about them.” Thich Nhat Hanh

[dneal]

“For things to reveal themselves to us, we need to be ready to abandon our views about them.” Thich Nhat Hanh

To translate that to the local audience, expand your information acquisition strategy. Based on the cites and links, most are stuck in a do-loop of the NYT op-ed silliness.

[Chuck Naill]

From Bill Bar
" Trump’s attorney general Bill Barr seemed today to be trying to get whatever is left of the Republican establishment to abandon the former president. He told two different Fox News Channel programs: “I…think for them to have taken things to the current point, they probably have pretty good evidence…. I think the driver on this from the beginning was…loads of classified information sitting in Mar-a-Lago. People say this was unprecedented, well it’s also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put them in a country club.”

“I can’t think of a legitimate reason why they…could be taken…away from the government if they’re classified.” He added that he was “skeptical” that Trump had declassified the documents. “I think it’s highly improbable, [and]...if in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them, and said ‘I hereby declassify everything in here,’ that would be such an abuse and…shows such recklessness it’s almost worse than taking the documents.”
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-2-2022?utm_source=email

[TSherbs]

From Bill Bar
" Trump’s attorney general Bill Barr seemed today to be trying to get whatever is left of the Republican establishment to abandon the former president. He told two different Fox News Channel programs: “I…think for them to have taken things to the current point, they probably have pretty good evidence…. I think the driver on this from the beginning was…loads of classified information sitting in Mar-a-Lago. People say this was unprecedented, well it’s also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put them in a country club.”

“I can’t think of a legitimate reason why they…could be taken…away from the government if they’re classified.” He added that he was “skeptical” that Trump had declassified the documents. “I think it’s highly improbable, [and]...if in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them, and said ‘I hereby declassify everything in here,’ that would be such an abuse and…shows such recklessness it’s almost worse than taking the documents.”
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-2-2022?utm_source=email

It's not often that I agree with Bill Barr. We'll see what Garland and the department does with all this.

[TSherbs]

A guess a nerve was touched...

Trump lashed out at Bill Barr after the former attorney general said the DOJ was justified in raiding Mar-a-Lago
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lashes-out-bill-barr-comments-mar-a-lago-raid-2022-9

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Trump values fealty above law.

[Chuck Naill]

This all goes back to the goat play. When someone famous says something, folks go GaGa.

[Chuck Naill]

So, Putin isn’t paying respects to Mr. Gorby. This reminds me of Trump and McCain.

[Chuck Naill]

And so so it goes…
Oath Keepers' attorney charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice - https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/1120639745/oath-keepers-charged-kellye-sorelle

[Chuck Naill]

Betting on the wrong horse……

How does it occur??

[Chip]

Too late, Barr has an attack of honesty. . .

Barr Dismisses Trump’s Request for a Special Master

The former attorney general, who chose not to indict Mr. Trump in the Russia inquiry, said the Justice Department was justified in investigating his handling of government materials.

By Glenn Thrush
Sept. 2, 2022

WASHINGTON — Former Attorney General William P. Barr dismissed former President Donald J. Trump’s call for an independent review of materials seized from his Florida home on Friday — and said an inventory of items recovered in the search last month seemed to support the Justice Department’s claim that it was needed to safeguard national security.

“As more information comes out, the actions of the department look more understandable,” Mr. Barr told The New York Times in a phone interview, speaking of the decision by the current attorney general, Merrick B. Garland, to seek a search warrant of the complex at Mar-a-Lago.

“It seems to me they were driven by concern about highly sensitive information being strewn all over a country club, and it was taking them almost two years to get it back,” said Mr. Barr, who resigned in December 2020, as Mr. Trump pushed him to support false claims that the election had been stolen.

“It appears that there’s been a lot of jerking around of the government,” he added. “I’m not sure the department could have gotten it back without taking action.”

Asked what he thought of the argument for the appointment of a special master, an independent arbiter to review the material that could delay the investigation, Mr. Barr laughed.

“I think it’s a crock of shit,” he said, adding, “I don’t think a special master is called for.”

Mr. Barr has not been afraid to criticize Mr. Trump since leaving office, but he has seldom been quite so blunt in his assessment as during the interview on Friday afternoon, or earlier in the day when he expressed similar sentiments on Fox News.

Mr. Barr’s comments, which echo the assessment of many Democrats and a few Republicans, including the former Bush adviser Karl Rove, came as Mr. Trump’s supporters tried to downplay the importance of the inventory unsealed by a federal judge in Florida.

The eight-page document, which was made public with the tacit assent of the former president’s lawyers, revealed that the F.B.I. recovered 11,179 documents or photographs without classification markings belonging to the government, and more than 100 others marked top secret, secret or confidential.

“It’s hard to wrap your head around him taking so much sensitive materials,” Mr. Barr said. “I was, let’s just say, surprised.”

As attorney general, Mr. Barr chose not to pursue criminal charges against Mr. Trump after the 2019 report into Mr. Trump’s actions in the Russia investigation. Last month, the department released a memo commissioned by Mr. Barr, in which two deputies (***both political appointees***) rejected a prosecution, saying that none of Mr. Trump’s actions could be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be criminal acts.

And while he generally backed the department’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents and unequivocally supported the government’s retrieval of sensitive materials, he seemed far less certain about a potential prosecution on charges of obstruction or the Espionage Act, which prohibits the unauthorized retention of national security secrets.

“They have to think about the impact on the country of the precedent set by trying a former president,” Mr. Barr said.

For his part, Mr. Garland has repeatedly said that he would go where the evidence leads him, and that he would act without “fear or favor” when it comes to making decisions in matters involving Mr. Trump and his allies.

[Chip]

Why so worried about any precedent
Set by arresting an ex-president
Whose thieving and lying
And possible spying
Have aroused both disgust and astonishment.

[Lloyd]

Why so worried about any precedent
Set by arresting an ex-president
Whose thieving and lying
And possible spying
Have aroused both disgust and astonishment.
Fear of a (un) Civil War.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Trump's first rally since the raid was fairly predictable. Did you know that the DOJ and FBI are "vicious monsters?"

https://i.imgur.com/LjxJsJV.jpg

[Lloyd]

Did you know that the DOJ and FBI are "vicious monsters?"



In the eyes of a criminal, they are.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TFarnon]

Why so worried about any precedent
Set by arresting an ex-president
Whose thieving and lying
And possible spying
Have aroused both disgust and astonishment.
Fear of a (un) Civil War.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Why is anyone afraid of a civil war? War is horrible, to be sure, but BTDT got the DD-214. I'm getting restless and just want an excuse to cry havoc and loose the dogs of war. Or something.

[TSherbs]

Trump's first rally since the raid was fairly predictable. Did you know that the DOJ and FBI are "vicious monsters?"

https://i.imgur.com/LjxJsJV.jpg

Wasn't he their boss for four years? What a turncoat bastard he is! He was their boss for four years, now he is calling them all sorts of names.

Waaaaah, is right.