When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
While continuing to acknowledge that the recent criminal indictment of former president Trump is clearly motived entirely by political vengeance rather than a genuine interest in national security, you gotta admit... some of the memes are pretty good.
While continuing to acknowledge that the recent criminal indictment of former president Trump is clearly motived entirely by political vengeance rather than a genuine interest in national security, you gotta admit... some of the memes are pretty good.
Dont worry, General Petraeus -- with no declassifying power -- stole classified documents and gave them to his mistress and was only slapped with probation.
Hillary setup a secret private server to scirscumvent the law and wasnt indiciated.
I'm sure they'll treat the former president incredibly fairly when it comes to the nothingburger documents he took home like every other sitting president.
Dont worry, General Petraeus -- with no declassifying power -- stole classified documents and gave them to his mistress and was only slapped with probation.
Hillary setup a secret private server to scirscumvent the law and wasnt indiciated.
I'm sure they'll treat the former president incredibly fairly when it comes to the nothingburger documents he took home like every other sitting president.
Welcome back, Scott.
I think I just figured something out, which gives me perspective on some of the frequent misunderstandings which seem to occur in this thread.
I tend to look at situations like this and think "Ok, this is a thing which is happening. I wonder what the outcome of it will be, and what effect that will have on other things."
You (and certain others here) tend to look at situations like this and think "Why is this thing happening? That hardly seems fair."
What, versus why.
From my point of view, why does not matter. It is happening, no amount of fact or truth is going to change that, and the only important thing is what will the consequences be.
I'm sure that philosophers or sociologists have some words to describe those two differing schools of thought.
after 7 years on (illegally) pinning fake crimes on trump, they finally going to get him on espionage. rofl.
(Scott Adams talking about Hillary's emails)
Objectively speaking, one major difference here (as opposed to Hillary, or VP Biden, or whatever else) is that there does appear to be evidence that Trump deliberately lied and attempted to cover this up. It shows intent. Mens Rea, in legalese.
But getting back to the facts, and looking towards the future, the former President is in fact going to face a criminal trial for whole bunch of interesting charges, and from where we stand at this very early point, I'm seeing some decent arguments to be made by the prosecutor, and nothing at all in the way of the defense, apart from "Well, then why aren't you also investigating Hillary and Biden? They did crime-stuff, too!" This isn't going to be a popularity contest like the two impeachments were.
It'll be very interesting to watch this unfold. Even if Trump is convicted, my bet would be that the Judge permits him to remain out on bond and without restrictions on movement at least until the conclusion of the 2024 election. Once that happens, we're in uncharted waters. I've been wondering things such as "how would the Secret Service continue to fulfill its obligation with an incarcerated protectee?"
Sending Trump to anything even resembling a conventional prison is fraught with so many logistical hurdles that I just cannot imagine any judge ordering it. I'm placing my bet right now: If is is convicted, and if the judge does sentence him to any sort of incarceration, it'll be home confinement. I mean, it's not like you'd need to slap an ankle monitor on him.
Objectively speaking, one major difference here (as opposed to Hillary, or VP Biden, or whatever else) is that there does appear to be evidence that Trump deliberately lied and attempted to cover this up. It shows intent. Mens Rea, in legalese.
But getting back to the facts, and looking towards the future, ....
No one has seen all the facts yet. It's all bread and circuses while REAL issues float along in the periphery. Such as:
Investigators who scrutinised top-secret intercepted communications and scientific research believe Chinese scientists were running a covert project of dangerous experiments, which caused a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and started the Covid-19 outbreak.
The US investigators say one of the reasons there is no published information on the work is because it was done in collaboration with researchers from the Chinese military, which was funding it and which, they say, was pursuing bioweapons.
So...bioweapons research, pandemic, Big Pharma collusion with the Deep State, and on and on.
Or pretending the two tiered judicial system is actually based on some sort of rule of law, like an actual Republic. Peeshaw.
Objectively speaking, one major difference here (as opposed to Hillary, or VP Biden, or whatever else) is that there does appear to be evidence that Trump deliberately lied and attempted to cover this up. It shows intent. Mens Rea, in legalese.
Im sorry did you confuse hillary and trump again?
What evidence? Was it in a dossier? Surely wasnt in a laptop...
Unfollow the Science: 300 COVID Articles Pulled, Many Over Lack of Ethical Standards
More than 300 COVID-19-related articles have been retracted — long after they’d done their damage — due to a lack of scientific truthfulness and ethical guidelines, according to Retraction Watch, a website that monitors retractions of science-related articles.
According to Gunnveig Grødeland, a senior researcher at the Institute of Immunology at the University of Oslo, many researchers took ethical shortcuts when writing their essays.
“It will, of course, be withdrawn when it is found that ethical guidelines have been breached,” Grødeland quipped to Khrono, an academic news publication.
Grødeland states that there were other reasons articles were pulled, including researchers using too small sample size and new media outlets being deceptive about what the papers actually concluded. Sometimes the data changed, and articles were later retracted.
The lion’s share of these articles was released in smaller publications, but the prestigious Lancet got nailed a few times as well.
What evidence? Was it in a dossier? Surely wasnt in a laptop...
Once again, whatever Hillary did or did not do is not going to be useful to the defense in the matter of United States v. Donald J. Trump, et al.
One thing which has been bugging me, and in deference to my earlier analysis I admit this is more about "why" than "what," is the motivation behind this most recent prosecution. Three possible answers spring to mind.
#1 is inertia. The democrats and their allies have been coming up with reasons to prosecute Trump for so long that they're just running on autopilot.
#2 is revenge. Certain people are still so butt-hurt that all they want to do is hurt Trump in any way they can.
#3 is that this is part of a broader strategy to shape the 2024 election.
I don't consider #2 and #3 to be mutually exclusive, and the truth is probably a mix of the two.
What puzzles me is the idea that no one involved with the process has seriously considered the fact that obtaining a criminal conviction against Trump, especially if it results in incarceration, is going to elevate him to the status of martyr among the faithful. If Trump goes to jail (or house-arrest), then it'll be the Republicans who suddenly start rising from the grave and casting mail-in ballots next year.
Also, again, I am being 100% serious when I say that Trump, while by no means a sweet innocent angel, is clearly the victim of a deranged political party obsessed with his destruction, and yet that does not change the fact that, despite the "the left can't meme" mantra, the memes are continuing to be great:
Once again, whatever Hillary did or did not do is not going to be useful to the defense in the matter of United States v. Donald J. Trump, et al.
One thing which has been bugging me, and in deference to my earlier analysis I admit this is more about "why" than "what," is the motivation behind this most recent prosecution. Three possible answers spring to mind.
#1 is inertia. The democrats and their allies have been coming up with reasons to prosecute Trump for so long that they're just running on autopilot.
#2 is revenge. Certain people are still so butt-hurt that all they want to do is hurt Trump in any way they can.
#3 is that this is part of a broader strategy to shape the 2024 election.
I don't consider #2 and #3 to be mutually exclusive, and the truth is probably a mix of the two.
What puzzles me is the idea that no one involved with the process has seriously considered the fact that obtaining a criminal conviction against Trump, especially if it results in incarceration, is going to elevate him to the status of martyr among the faithful. If Trump goes to jail (or house-arrest), then it'll be the Republicans who suddenly start rising from the grave and casting mail-in ballots next year.
I agree; it's not what Hillary does. It's what people like you do. Somewhat informed people who aren't MAGA, and aren't even mildly Republican. If the people in the middle and the left can't see that what's happening is screwing their lives now and will be for the foreseeable future, then we should all just buckle up with a case of nearly free Bud Light and watch it end.
I agree; it's not what Hillary does. It's what people like you do. Somewhat informed people who aren't MAGA, and aren't even mildly Republican. If the people in the middle and the left can't see that what's happening is screwing their lives now and will be for the foreseeable future, then we should all just buckle up with a case of nearly free Bud Light and watch it end.
I completely agree with you that those who are apathetic towards tyranny unwittingly give quarter to tyrants. I feel as though you interpret my attention to outcomes rather than recriminations as apathy.
I just made a post in the "Random Stuff" thread which I had originally considered posting here, as I believe that here is where its message is most needed. But I ultimately decided to post it there instead, as I feel that that thread is more receptive to knowledge and learning, and not a place in which thoughtful content is quickly buried under a mountain of meme-dumps.
Particularly since Scott is now back from vacation.
But I'll go ahead and cross-post it here, in the hope that a few people may actually absorb it fully. I've tried my very best to be objective and unbiased. And, most importantly, results-focused.
The re-post, with intro slightly edited to reflect it being in this thread:
I love watching this guy. Some of his videos delve into really obscure or bizarre cases which, as a former law student and amateur law nerd, I find both educational and entertaining.
This one is especially good. Despite the title, it's not actually about Ron DeSantis, or the indoctrination of kindergarteners into deviant lifestyles, or any of the other things which it appears to be.
It's about the difference between Reality and The Law.
That's a distinction which I feel is often overlooked in the race to pass judgement on controversial topics about how "that's not fair" or "this is clearly biased." And I grant you, it often isn't fair, and it often is biased. But when discussing matters which are actually before the court, fairness and bias are typically¹ not relevant to the outcome. Interpretation of The Law is.
The short version is that the Walt Disney company, which for some reason has decided to become a political activist organization, took on Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and, despite receiving an apparently fatal gut-punch, actually turned around and won by using some incredibly novel and creative legal tactics, one of which involves King Charles III of England.
And not in some obscure, roundabout way. They literally call him out by name.
Yes, the King of England is relevant to a legal battle in Florida. That specific punch-line is delivered starting at 19:17, but believe me when I say that unless you are comfortably familiar with the Rule Against Perpetuities, then simply jumping to that point will not make sense.
I mean, you gotta assume that a company which has managed to keep a cartoon drawing of a mouse out of the public domain for almost a hundred years employs some pretty clever attorneys.
It really is worth giving this 23 minutes of your full attention, if this sort of thing interests you:
Unfollow the Science: 300 COVID Articles Pulled, Many Over Lack of Ethical Standards
More than 300 COVID-19-related articles have been retracted — long after they’d done their damage — due to a lack of scientific truthfulness and ethical guidelines, according to Retraction Watch, a website that monitors retractions of science-related articles.
According to Gunnveig Grødeland, a senior researcher at the Institute of Immunology at the University of Oslo, many researchers took ethical shortcuts when writing their essays.
“It will, of course, be withdrawn when it is found that ethical guidelines have been breached,” Grødeland quipped to Khrono, an academic news publication.
Grødeland states that there were other reasons articles were pulled, including researchers using too small sample size and new media outlets being deceptive about what the papers actually concluded. Sometimes the data changed, and articles were later retracted.
The lion’s share of these articles was released in smaller publications, but the prestigious Lancet got nailed a few times as well.
"Just take some of the stuff around COVID earlier in the pandemic where there were real health implications, but there hadn't been time to fully vet a bunch of the scientific assumptions. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the kind of establishment on that kind of waffled on a bunch of facts and asked for a bunch of things to be censored that, in retrospect, ended up being more debatable or true. That stuff is really tough, right? It really undermines trust."
I agree; it's not what Hillary does. It's what people like you do. Somewhat informed people who aren't MAGA, and aren't even mildly Republican. If the people in the middle and the left can't see that what's happening is screwing their lives now and will be for the foreseeable future, then we should all just buckle up with a case of nearly free Bud Light and watch it end.
At least three presidents. A vice president, a secretary of state, an attorney general. The mishandling of classified documents is not a problem unique to President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.
The matter of classified records and who, exactly, has hung onto them got more complicated Tuesday as news surfaced that former Vice President Mike Pence also had such records in his possession after he left office. Like Biden, Pence willingly turned them over to authorities after they were discovered during a search he requested, according to his lawyer and aides.
...
It’s been a problem off and on for decades, from presidents to Cabinet members and staff across multiple administrations stretching as far back as Jimmy Carter. The issue has taken on greater significance since Trump willfully retained classified material at his Florida estate, prompting the unprecedented FBI seizure of thousands of pages of records last year.
It turns out former officials from all levels of government discover they are in possession of classified material and turn them over to the authorities at least several times a year, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of classified documents.
Current and former officials involved in the handling of classified information say that while there are clear policies for how such information should be reviewed and stored, those policies are sometimes pushed aside at the highest levels. Teams of national security officials, secretaries and military aides who share responsibility for keeping top-level executives informed — and the executives themselves — may bend the rules for convenience, expediency or sometimes due to carelessness.
When President Trump left office, there was little time to prepare for the outgoing transition from the presidency. Unlike his three predecessors, each of whom had over four years to prepare for their departure upon completion of their second term, President Trump had a much shorter time to wind up his administration. White House staffers and General Service Administration (“GSA”) employees quickly packed everything into boxes and shipped them to Florida. This was a stark change from the standard preparations made by GSA and National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) for prior administrations. As NARA acknowledged in a Press Statement it issued on October 11, 2022:
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), in accordance with the Presidential Records Act, assumed physical and legal custody of the Presidential records from the administrations of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan, when those Presidents left office. NARA securely moved these records to temporary facilities that NARA leased from the General Services Administration (GSA), near the locations of the future Presidential Libraries that former Presidents built for NARA. All such temporary facilities met strict archival and security standards, and have been managed and staffed exclusively by NARA employees.2
NARA unfortunately has become overtly political and declined to provide archival assistance to President Trump’s transition team. Interestingly, in its Press Statement NARA cites every recent President after Jimmy Carter as having received the same assistance with “archival and security standards”. Yet, President Carter, the last President before President Trump to not receive archival assistance found documents with classification markings in his home, which he returned to NARA (though apparently without an accompanying DOJ criminal probe).3
...Mr. Epshteyn had hindered him and other lawyers from getting information to Mr. Trump, leaving the former president’s legal team at a disadvantage in dealing with the Justice Department, which is scrutinizing Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents after leaving office and his efforts to remain in office after losing the 2020 election.
...Mr. Parlatore singled out Mr. Epshteyn as trying to keep the team from conducting additional searches of Mr. Trump’s properties after the F.B.I. executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida, and discovered more than 100 additional classified documents.
As I said at the time, it had nothing to do with the case itself or the client. There are certain individuals that made defending the president much harder than it needed to be.
sounds to me like the only evidence there is of an intentional crime is the government trying to setup Trump. But the government has always played by the rules when it comes to Trump, right? It is common practice to take home classified materials and put them on secret unsecure servers or locked up next to the corvette. It's just (D)ifferent with Trump.
06-11-2023, 04:22 PM
2
