January 6 - How much do you care?

[BDKJMU]

Damn double post.

[BDKJMU]

Oh, I forgot. It's okay to have two standards of law.

Obama is "in the club" too, so it was okay.

Let's split the difference and lock trump and Hillary up for the rest of their lives. We remove 2 cancerous criminal grifters from public life, it's a win-win!

Why did you leave out Obama as Seattle already quoted?

And yet the accumulation of recent congressional testimony has made it clear that the Obama administration itself engaged in the wholesale destruction and “loss” of tens of thousands of government records covered under the act as well as the intentional evasion of the government records recording system by engaging in private email exchanges

[UNI88]

Let's split the difference and lock trump and Hillary up for the rest of their lives. We remove 2 cancerous criminal grifters from public life, it's a win-win!

Why did you leave out Obama as Seattle already quoted?

And yet the accumulation of recent congressional testimony has made it clear that the Obama administration itself engaged in the wholesale destruction and “loss” of tens of thousands of government records covered under the act as well as the intentional evasion of the government records recording system by engaging in private email exchanges

Why did you post the same question twice?

Two reasons - One, it's a one for one trade. Including Obama requires a second conk. Two, there was no link to show where SG's quote came from so I can't know it's validity. I could use the quote function to post all sorts of things, for example:

Video has emerged of Donald trump, Matt Gaetz and Madison Cawthorn engaged in a sexual orgy with more than a dozen pre-teen boys who appear to be drugged.

[kalm]

I'm fvcking with you and using your own words about twatter against you on Elias.

Did trump take classified documents to MAL? Is he above the law?

I have no clue what he took, but instances like this in the past have been dealt with in a civil and not criminal manner.

Hillary had somewhere around 588 violations of mishandling classified documents, but was never put through this. This is about trying to keep Trump off the ticket and to goad his supporters into doing something stupid.

1). I don’t think k anyone but MAGA wants to see the chaos and threats to stability of another Trump campaign.

2). Trump would likely improve the chances of a Dem victory in 2024.

[SeattleGriz]

I have no clue what he took, but instances like this in the past have been dealt with in a civil and not criminal manner.

Hillary had somewhere around 588 violations of mishandling classified documents, but was never put through this. This is about trying to keep Trump off the ticket and to goad his supporters into doing something stupid.

1). I don’t think k anyone but MAGA wants to see the chaos and threats to stability of another Trump campaign.

2). Trump would likely improve the chances of a Dem victory in 2024.

What do you mean by 'threats to stability'? Are you talking the Presidency, our country or the world? Or all three?!

[kalm]

1). I don’t think k anyone but MAGA wants to see the chaos and threats to stability of another Trump campaign.

2). Trump would likely improve the chances of a Dem victory in 2024.

What do you mean by 'threats to stability'? Are you talking the Presidency, our country or the world? Or all three?!

Financial markets.

[kalm]

Additional speculation on the right’s reaction and what to expect



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1557 ... &fs=e&s=cl

[SeattleGriz]

Additional speculation on the right’s reaction and what to expect



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1557 ... &fs=e&s=cl

After reading a few articles, I'm not sure they can prevent Trump from running for the qualifications are outlined in the constitution.

[UNI88]

Additional speculation on the right’s reaction and what to expect



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1557 ... &fs=e&s=cl

Do you see the irony here?

In 2016, Democrats didn't seem to think that "mishandling such highly classified information" should have been used to bar Hillary from holding public office.

As Baldy said "the lack of self-awareness is comical" and that statement applies to both sides of this circus.

[BDKJMU]

And right now, more than a few Republicans are optimistic. Especially DeSantis.

Like has already been pointed out, we already saw in 2016 that violation of 18 USC 2071 doesn’t bar someome running for a fed office. If it doesn’t apply to Clinton, it doesn’t apply to Trump..

[BDKJMU]

What do you mean by 'threats to stability'? Are you talking the Presidency, our country or the world? Or all three?!

Financial markets.

The financial markets did just fine under Trump once. Your drama queen ‘threats to stability’ are

[GannonFan]

Additional speculation on the right’s reaction and what to expect



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1557 ... &fs=e&s=cl

After reading a few articles, I'm not sure they can prevent Trump from running for the qualifications are outlined in the constitution.

SG's right on this. There's no way that that section of the US Code would stand up in court as a way to disqualify someone from running and being elected President. There's just no way that it passes Constitutional muster, as the Constitution is pretty clear on what the requirements are to stand for election for President.

Now, if they want to pursue the 14th amendment angle, that's still a possibility. Just because it didn't work with Greene doesn't mean it couldn't work with Trump. Still a long shot, but this SCOTUS does have a tendency to stick to the words as written so an argument could be made against Trump.

[kalm]

Additional speculation on the right’s reaction and what to expect



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1557 ... &fs=e&s=cl

Do you see the irony here?

In 2016, Democrats didn't seem to think that "mishandling such highly classified information" should have been used to bar Hillary from holding public office.

As Baldy said "the lack of self-awareness is comical" and that statement applies to both sides of this circus.

Sure…but then again I’m fine with Hillary being prosecuted and I I’ve moved past it. I no longer search for bothsidesdoitisms. It’s 2022 and it’s Trump’s time.

[kalm]

Financial markets.

The financial markets did just fine under Trump once. Your drama queen ‘threats to stability’ are

They did and I’ll be fine regardless. But the wise guys don’t like instability and a Trump campaign will create that. You should know already know this.

[UNI88]

The financial markets did just fine under Trump once. Your drama queen ‘threats to stability’ are

They did and I’ll be fine regardless. But the wise guys don’t like instability and a Trump campaign will create that. You should know already know this.

The markets also don't like the utter cluelessness of the Biden administration so that might be a wash.

[BDKJMU]

What would the left have been saying in 2020 if the Trump’s Dept of Justice had conducted a pre dawn raid on Biden’s house during the Biden campaign to be the Democrat nominee, or after Biden had become the Democrat nominee, based on the Hunter laptop investigation, which we all know has tons of incriminating evidence on it. What would the MSM had said then? They would have lost their collective shit. The fact that they aren’t with this crossing of the rubicon shows their incredible hypocrisy and choosing a side.

[kalm]

[BDKJMU]

We have the Dept of Justice of the current president, who just beat the former president, and is right now poised to run potentially against Trump again, using his Dept of Justice to try to destroy and put in prison, his primary political adversary. This is something that happens in 3rd world countries amd bananna republics all the time. We’ve never seen anything like this in at least the modern era, if not ever, in US history.

[houndawg]

Additional speculation on the right’s reaction and what to expect



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1557 ... &fs=e&s=cl

Do you see the irony here?

In 2016, Democrats didn't seem to think that "mishandling such highly classified information" should have been used to bar Hillary from holding public office.

As Baldy said "the lack of self-awareness is comical" and that statement applies to both sides of this circus.

false equivalency

[houndawg]

After reading a few articles, I'm not sure they can prevent Trump from running for the qualifications are outlined in the constitution.

SG's right on this. There's no way that that section of the US Code would stand up in court as a way to disqualify someone from running and being elected President. There's just no way that it passes Constitutional muster, as the Constitution is pretty clear on what the requirements are to stand for election for President.

Now, if they want to pursue the 14th amendment angle, that's still a possibility. Just because it didn't work with Greene doesn't mean it couldn't work with Trump. Still a long shot, but this SCOTUS does have a tendency to stick to the words as written so an argument could be made against Trump.

You'd have to be crazy to be a donk and not want him to run. The sooner he announces the better.

[UNI88]

We have the Dept of Justice of the current president, who just beat the former president, and is right now poised to run potentially against Trump again, using his Dept of Justice to try to destroy and put in prison, his primary political adversary. This is something that happens in 3rd world countries amd bananna republics all the time. We’ve never seen anything like this in at least the modern era, if not ever, in US history.

January 6 was also a banana republic type situation.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

the current president, who just beat the former president,

[kalm]

“Nothing like Hillary’s emails.”

Trump could shed light and somewhat vindicate himself he choses to.

In the absence of more detailed information about the investigation, it’s unclear what potential crimes DOJ is probing. Notably, Trump — after a fierce campaign against Clinton in which he called for her to be jailed for her handling of classified material — signed a law in 2018 that stiffened the penalty for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents from one year to five years, turning it into a felony offense.

That was the same statute that just three years earlier Petraeus pleaded guilty to in order to avoid a felony conviction.

While both the DOJ and FBI have been silent amid calls they further explain the context of the Mar-a-Lago search, they are not the only ones in possession of relevant information.

Trump is in perhaps the best position to reveal more details about what transpired on Monday. The former president has access to the full inventory of items that federal investigators were seeking as well as what was taken from his estate during the search. He or his lawyers were almost certainly presented with a copy of the search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago — though not the underlying affidavit or other supplemental materials, which are usually kept confidential until charges are issued or a case is closed. In addition, Trump can speak to the nature of any potentially classified material that may have been the basis for the search and whether he took steps to declassify any of it as he left office.

“If people are calling for it to be made public, I believe that is within the power of Mr. Trump to do,” Aftergood said. “He could describe what was at stake and what the point of disagreement was. He doesn’t need to speculate.”

Laufman and Aftergood emphasized that the potential culpability for Trump or his allies depends entirely on potential aggravating circumstances — from the volume of classified material in his possession to the level of classification of the information, whether he or any allies misled the National Archives or Justice Department about the inventory at Mar-a-Lago and whether there were efforts to conceal it or resist turning it over.

A court-authorized FBI search, like the one that occurred Monday, would be warranted, Aftergood said, if “the material is of such extraordinary national security sensitivity that it absolutely must be within government custody.”

“That’s not something you write letters about,” he added. “That’s something you need to take custody of now and argue about later.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/0 ... s-00050691

[kalm]

[BDKJMU]

Bruce Reinhart, a Florida federal magistrate judge, donated $1,000 to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and added $1,000 more to the Obama Victory Fund that same cycle, according to federal filings.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge- ... -obama.amp