Tuco

Considering the timing, is this judge subtly telling Cannon she's being played. Well, Cannon and all the other Trump appointees mentioned.

I’m thinking it’s Mueller. Sure, recycling characters from earlier seasons may demonstrate a lack of creativity, but I think he needs a redemption arc.

One old, rich racist down…

How many of them partially recover? Keep in mind, the President of the United States is about to turn 80. And Senator Feinstein thinks of him when she complains about younger generations. I don't know what parts of Fetterman's brain were damaged. If it was mostly motor control (including the act of speech), it really doesn't phase me in the least. Is there any indication he's getting confused? Memory loss, particularly new memories? Emotional instability? Those would concern me. I also don't think he would be in front of a camera, at all, if that were the case.

I haven’t looked at his medical charts, nor could I understand them, but, sure, why not.

The Churchill line about "...in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly" applies. Fetterman can recover from his brain damage. Oz will always be Oz.

I think for Top Secret documents, there is a definitely a tracking system. But, any system is reliant on people following it. If Trump just said "Oh, I already gave that back" there isn't much some executive branch official can do while he is office. I am sure the DOJ has a pretty good list of what has not been returned. It does put a new perspective on the story that Trump would flush documents. At the time, that story looked like people leaking what a dipshit he was. Now it looks like spin. It's a common theme: something that looks horrible for any other politician is actually "best case scenario" for Trump.

It's certainly plausible. My guess would be North Korea. He truly believes that he saved the world from nuclear war with North Korea, and that he was the only person who could have done so. I could absolutely see him taking top secret nuke assessments as a trophy - to show interested parties how close we were to nuclear war. I mean, finally a fucking motive for this stupidity that makes sense, in the way anything Trump does makes sense. That being said, "people familiar with the matter" equates to the Trump camp. Nobody else who knows anything can talk to reporters. And this is a plausible explanation that is certainly foolish and vain, but isn't nefarious. This isn't something that loses Trump's base. So, grain of salt. Also, could be a red herring.

And? John Podesta has been a political heavy hitter for a while. There is nothing vaguely surprising about him taking a role in the Biden administration. And hopefully he understands how to avoid spearphishing attacks now. As a follow-up on this thread, the DOJ dropped the investigation into Tony Podesta and Vin Weber about three years ago. article

That guy should be in a training videos for campaigns. 22 years old. Just moved. Knows he doesn't like Trump or Trump allies, but doesn't know which names are on his side. He doesn't need convincing, just direction. Get him registered. Repeat "Will Rollins" a thousand times in a thousand ways until the name sticks. Make sure he knows how, when, and where he can vote. Repeat that information a few dozen times. Get him a mail in ballot. Remind him to send it in. A few dozen times if needed. Getting his vote has nothing to do with political positions and everything to do with putting the work (and money) in. And there are thousands of other Brady Bates out there. People who follow politics (like everyone on this thread) frequently lose the context that we are the weird ones.

Also, a couple other differences: 1. She didn’t have anything that was marked top secret or secret. There were some documents that were later deemed TS because of the information they referenced , but they weren’t marked when she received them. (Going mostly off memory here, so correct me if I’m wrong.) 2. She did it to do a job. There is a balance between efficiency and security, and a balance between privacy and security. Clinton certainly deserves criticism for ignoring the established framework for where that balance should be. But I never saw a motive out there for personal gain. Trump doesn’t work for the government anymore. There is no job-related justification. Hillary’s actions are more in line with the numerous private email accounts we know people in the Trump administration set up. Kush operated as the de facto Secretary of State without being a govt employee. It’s tempting to compare top scandal vs top scandal, but in reality Clinton’s top scandal lines up to shit we didn’t even have time to focus on.

Better luck next trip. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have not doubt that foreign agencies are still spying on Trump (and Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) I would guess they would be more likely paying folks already on MAL payroll, rather than trying to create a cover that certainly the SS is thoroughly vetting. That's a pretty valuable asset to risk on an ex-President. So, probably no trained spies working as bellhops. I would also imagine there have been trained spies who have been invited by guests and/or Trump himself. There may be US intel there as well, but the political implications of the CIA spying on Trump would be huge. If they are there, it's probably more counter espionage to any of the folks from other governments. I doubt that they are going into any of his private rooms or eaves dropping. I hate Trump, but I would be pissed if the CIA was freelancing like that. And if they were, they wouldn't be sharing broadly across the agencies. All just guesses.

The DOT requirement could, and should, change. The current urine tests are for what cannabinoids break down into, not the cannabinoids themselves. It's the remnants of being stoned, not an indication of being stoned. I believe saliva tests are for current use, or at least a much shorter history. I think blood tests could be geared for active shit as well. The current testing is an artifact from when the goal was to prohibit pot smokers in general, not just idiots who are inhibited at work. If you did the same for alcohol there would be riots. And, because it is so broad, many companies have stricken the drug testing policies entirely and are more likely to have inhibited employees.

We should probably define terms some. I think "legalization" means establishing a legal framework people to use/buy/sell weed without any legal implications. "Decriminalization' means removing criminal penalties, but still not establishing a system where people are allowed to do it. For example, Nebraska "decriminalized" possession under an ounce of flower back in the late 80s. That meant people wouldn't go to prison for low-level possession, but would still pay a $300 ticket if they were caught. It was more about criminal justice and not stupidly spending millions of dollars to incarcerate people who were no risk to society. But it is still against the law. As far as the Feds, there are several things they could do to help: - Change the federal employment drug testing guidelines. Many companies in legalized states still use these guidelines as the basis for their drug testing regime, even for employees who are terminally ill. - I believe Reagan prohibited federal dollars from being used in testing the medical benefits of marijuana. If that policy is still in place, it should be removed. Thats less legalization or decriminalization, but rather - Congress could establish a legal framework for handling finances for mj sales in states where it is legal. That would be huge for reducing crimes around pot shops who are forced to operate in cash. (I did hear that pot stores here in WA could accept debit cards. Not sure if that was from federal action or some local stopgap.) I agree that the Feds could not force the legalization of pot nationwide, just like they can't force the legalization of alcohol nationwide. (Hello, fucked up county in Amarillo.) But there many different aspects to the issue that they could establish a legal framework for (legalization), including the federal drug laws that pertain to it.

On the whole "declassification" nonsense, it's worth noting that declassifying the documents might ease the legal implication for Trump, but it would be 100 times worse for national security. If it included humint, it would be a death sentence for many people. And he would still be a viable candidate.

Yeah, I am able to follow some of the lawyer lingo, but I'll need a translation on this. Is it an implication that if you want to deal with any warrant shit, you should probably deal with the guy who signed the warrant?

Well, he did want to bring back enhanced interrogation. He should be first in line.

So how long before the GOP goes the Reagan route with Trump? “Oh, he was the best president ever, but he is obviously suffering from some age related deterioration. Let’s keep his movement alive, but bury him as fucking deep as we possibly can.”

I was looking forward to a Trump dictated response about the FBI taking pictures of messy files.

When considering what Trump would or wouldn't do, keep the following in mind: 1. The intelligence agencies were the enemy. They were out to get him from the start. 2. Trump is insane and stupid. It would take about ten minutes for Putin or MBS to convince him that intel contacts in the Russian or Saudi government were a threat to Trump and that he needed to provide their names to avoid being unfairly persecuted by the Deep State.

I'm not sure where Trump would draw the line for "obvious crime." I think at a minimum Trump took top secret documents from the White House, resisted returning them, lied about returning them, and hid their existence from the FBI. I don't feel like there is much question about those actions. If those crimes weren't obvious from the outset, they would have been after the FBI and his lawyers explained it to him. And yet he persisted.

It would be wonderful.

Based on Star Trek, that should catapult us back several decades. Sounds about right for the GOP.

Which is why it would make sense for her to go the informant route if she discovered Trump was still holding onto documents after she signed something that implied otherwise. This is all predicated on her being a reasonable person, which is not a safe assumption in the Trump world. It is also assuming that she later discovered, for a fact, that Trump was holding onto classified documents. That I could definitely see, because Trump is physically incapable of shutting the fuck up.