Tuco

I think taking a position of "backing" a huge group of people comes at the cost of holding them accountable. You can't "back the FBI" and then turnaround and say that some of them should be fired. And certainly there are people in the FBI, not connected to the Trump situation, who have done shit they should be fired for. Saying "I support the FBI," especially right now, implies that regardless of the situation, regardless of the actions, you have picked the people you are supporting, frequently against another group of people, regardless of the particulars of the situation. I save that kind of backing for family, and even that has limits. I support laws. I support the objective, fair enforcement of those laws. That includes the laws that limit the FBI. To me, the "If they can do it him, they can do it to anybody" is great insight into the Republican mindset regarding criminal justice. You don't see Republicans saying that about victims of police violence, like Breonna Taylor or George Floyd. Because they know it's not true. There is a social hierarchy, and they see black and poor people near the bottom of that hierarchy. Their major defense comes down to why Taylor and Floyd should be subject to the violence - Floyd with his past criminal issues and Taylor because she once dated someone a criminal. It's okay if the police victimize folks lower down, because they wouldn't dare do it to a middle class white guy. But with Trump, their concern is the cops are going after a rich white guy. That's a fear the GOP can exploit. If they go after Trump, then no one is safe. To them, the disproportionate impact of police violence is what makes it acceptable, or even desired.

Yeah. Fair enough. I guess my point is that the FBI should not have taken the passports, but they did. It's understandable given the situation that they did, but they did something that was not their intention. It should not be defended as saying "they can take your passport if they want." That just plays into deep state paranoia and characterization that the FBI can fuck you over for no reason. At this point, it should just be "sorry, our bad, here you go, please don't keep your personal stuff with top secret nuclear documents next time."

It's generally accepted that Denver has the best breakfast burritos.

Maybe from a lawyer's perspective, they don't need a reason. But as a citizen, yeah, they need a fucking reason. You can't just have FBI agents deciding to confiscate passports. That's a bullshit position. Sounds like the FBI fucked up here. But, per the email, it was two expired passports and one diplomatic one, so nothing that Trump could actually use. So, it's not really a big deal.

To be fair, Rudy has been auditioning for the role for years now. After a while I start to wonder if he saw too many episodes of "Orange is the New Black" and figured, yeah, that might be fun. He may be disappointed by the lack of lesbians.

Jay Bratt is the head of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the DOJ's National Security Division. I googled it and he has been mentioned in previous articles. To me, the bigger concern is if they weren't listed in the inventory. But maybe those inventories are just for the shit the FBI is keeping, not all the shit they took. Or maybe it's not that detailed. Edit ---didn't read close enough. Not sure who Jim is.

Oh, well, cool Tucker. Maybe you could start by having your show NOT BROADCAST DOCTORED PICTURES OF THE MAGISTRATE CAVORTING WITH PEDOPHILES. I think that little step could really help lower the temperature. Oh, and go fuck yourself you fucking twat.

So you only get ballot initiatives on issues that would otherwise pass? Fucking brilliant.

1. Gives the politicians (both sides) an opportunity to characterize the documents in a way the professionals can't refute. 2. Gives the politicians an opportunity to understand was included, figure out how bad it is, and determine a strategy for when/if it becomes public. Maybe it wasn't seized during the warrant. Maybe he was asked to surrender it. If so, that's a pretty big deal because (I would assume) he would have to agree to surrender it to prevent the Feds taking more significant actions. So, I doubt it. I doubt he would agree to it and then broadcast it. But I also didn't think he would take a sharpie to a hurricane map, so nothing is impossible.

Are you honestly worried that Beto will successfully pass any gun legislation you'd be opposed to? Or are you just finding excuses to continue to vote for people who will continue to make school violence worse? You seem to have no problem voting for Abbot when he opposes gun control laws you support, and you know, for a fact, 100%, that Abbot will be successful in his opposition.

I'll take the second paragraph first. That's like Yogi saying "Nobody goes there anymore because it's too crowded." Yes, people regularly completely destroy their lives over stupid shit. And yet it keeps happening. As far as Ricky Shiffer, there is stupid and there is completely crazy. The dude basically make a social media post and then jumped in his car thinking others would join him. That's just fucking crazy. I don't think you could do that on an ISIS Facebook group and expect any success. Keep in mind, this is not some hypothetical about the law enforcement helping "gravy seals." It already happens. Ahmaud Arbery. Were the cops and the prosecutor worried about their pensions when they signed off on the self-defense? Not in the slightest. And, until one of the shitstains started showing videos of the murder, their pensions were safe. Local cops are run by local governments, as designated by the local populations. And local populations in rural America are racist as fuck. So, if we are talking about the sheriff's office grabbing their shotguns and taking the FBI on, I agree that's unlikely. If we are talking about local LE supporting violent actions of right-wing extremists against minorities, it's already happening. I think it is reasonable to expect that it could extent to protecting militia groups and covering up violence on Dems/liberal activists and organizers (think 60's in the South). And, when some of the right wing militias are arrested, we'll get the Scooby Doo style reveal of the law enforcement when they take off the hoods.

This. And really, the great historical irony of Trump being charged for mishandling classified documents is just too hard to pass up. Oh Great Spaghetti Monster in the Sky, make this happen. Future generations demand it.

Keep in mind, Trumsters think Trump is literally one of the smartest people in the world. They are profoundly stupid. I do not trust them to calculate the risk here.

You understand that knowledge of recent history has a shitload to do with when you were born. Asking a teenager about WW2 is akin to asking me about WW1. How many GenXrs could give much info on the Ottoman Empire? Your concern is still warranted, but the examples are horrible. Questions about basic reasoning, constitutional rights, economics, scientific methods, etc. would be more compelling. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, if it was a picture of Biden or Pelosi or someone who is established as a public figure and has security to protect them from the loonies. Instead, FoxNews showed a picture of a relatively low level government official who is already getting death threats and showed he was cozy with pedophiles, which is a consistent weird flash point for right wing extremists. Kilmeades should be fired. Any producer who approved the photo should be fired. They are going to get this guy killed.

Why? I don't think Biden is particularly worried about an indicted Trump winning 2024. Biden would have an easier time against Trump than any number of other candidates. And Biden would have an easier time against the other candidates if Trump should run in the primary. "Healing the nation" does not include DeSantis becoming President in 2024. I could see a decision to not prosecute, or to pardon, on the basis that Trump is senile stupid fuck, but I don't see Biden negotiating with McConnell over it. Definitely. If this is an extension of Flynn's attempt at sharing nuke power info with the Saudis, then I certainly don't think Trump would see it as harmful. If it is more than that - if it deals with weapons - I could see Trump brushing it off as a deterrent to Iran. Either way, if it helps Trump, he'd find some reason it's okay. And his base will nod and drool.

Good point on the Senate, not the full Congress, having ratification powers on treaties. And the ability of the President to unilaterally withdraw from treaties, particularly any non-proliferation treaties, could be key to his ability to share certain nuke information and what is required to declassify nuke info. As far as the "police actions," I see those as operating in the absence of Congressional action, not overriding it. If Congress can't explicitly state "No war with Oceania" then it's pretty obvious we have lost the thread on whatever the original intent was.

I would assume that if Congress passed a law on it, the President would have to abide by it. I mean, who we share information is very much related to treaties and war, two items which are clearly under Congress's control per the Constitution. But as someone mentioned earlier, I would be concerned there is a lack of legislation on it simply because you generally assume the President is acting in the best interest of the nation. It's not something any Congressional faction would expend much effort/capital in trying to get passed.

I take that part of the story with a massive grain of salt. There were two parties who could talk about that meeting: the FBI and people from Trump's camp, and I highly doubt the FBI side was talking. So any description of the tour and how it concluded came from Trump's camp.

Good read. Thanks.

Top secret is the highest legal classification. There may be subclassifications that make up top secret. But there are no secret legal classifications. You can’t prosecute trump on some super- secret classification. Laws are public.

I'll play the speculation game, with the realization that it is almost always someone I've never heard of. I'll go with Rudy. He is about spent out on any legal defenses, has been thrown under the bus by Trump, and ignored by the MAGAt world for fundraising. Trump has been clear that Rudy is not his attorney, so there wouldn't any attorney privileges around where Trump is hiding classified shit. Rudy's grand jury appearance was scheduled for August 9th, but I haven't heard an update on it. And, heh, if I want to go really speculative, on the Rudy thread it was mentioned that he had bought tickets to Rome and Zurich for travel at the end of July. He didn't take the trip. That thread implied he was fleeing law enforcement. But, what if Rudy was reprising his role of Trump's shady negotiator to foreign powers? Back then, he was offering up military aid in exchange for an investigation into Burisma and interference in the 2016 election. In doing so, he traveled to Europe (Vienna, Warsaw, in addition to Kiev) to meet with potential allies who would rather not travel to the US. But now, he doesn't have any influence over military spending. He can't trade government largesse for his personal gain. If he knew Trump had documents that someone might be interested in, I could see him trying to shop that around, either for a pay day or for foreign support of Trump, believing he could extract some favor from Trump later. And he is just stupid enough to do it. I mean, the idea of that glob of shoe polish stumbling around Europe, trying to pawn off Trump's piles of office detritus to anyone with $50 is a perfect ending to his illustrious career. The Coen Brothers are jealous that Burn After Reading couldn't capture the absurdity.

My recollection from the Clinton story, is that is extremely difficult to get any hard copies of anything classified as Top Secret. Basically you go into a secure room to view any documents. Electronic docs are on a closed computer system, so no emailing, printing, flash drives, etc.. Hard copies are indexed and tracked. Maybe it's different for the President than for the Secretary of State, but I know a lot of people made the "top secret"claim with Clinton, and it just wasn't feasible. I doubt Trump was able to walk out with Top Secret documents.

Would the search warrant reference the suspected crime?

Of course a guy named “Leveridge” is going to use his position of authority to get sex. That’s just lazy foreshadowing.