Jump to content

Tuco

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3367
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tuco

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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?
  6. Well, he did want to bring back enhanced interrogation. He should be first in line.
  7. 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.”
  8. I was looking forward to a Trump dictated response about the FBI taking pictures of messy files.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Based on Star Trek, that should catapult us back several decades. Sounds about right for the GOP.
  12. 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.
  13. Do you think she would be disbarred over it? Do you think she would be jailed over it?
  14. 1. It seems like she has a pretty massive disclaimer there: "Based upon the information that has been provided to me, I am authorized to certify, on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump.." She's not saying she conducted a search. She is not even saying you reviewed the document search methodology and found it reasonable. Technically, with the tortured sentence structure, she isn't even saying that she received information regarding the search, only that she received information that she is authorized to make an affirmation that a search was done per the bullet points. I can see where it would be considered non-responsive by the government and possibly piss of a judge. But, I don't think it is something that would end her up in jail or even end her career. She signed a meaningless statement. 2. Your second point, about correcting the record, is interesting to me. If she later found out that not all the records were returned, I imagine she would have an obligation to inform the government. Making her an informant. Sure, she could inform the government through formal filings, still advocating for her client and obscuring the details. But, it's not just the affidavit, it's an on-going crime. And it's unlikely Trump would agree with the more official ways of correcting the record. Continuing to do Trump's bidding could cost her career and possibly her freedom.
  15. Nah. Divorcees get half. Widows get most. ...plus she'll get to play the Dollar Store version of JackieO for the next few decades. She can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
  16. It’s tough when the only thing you believe in is getting elected.
  17. No, but anti-Trump Republicans positioning for a battle is good. There needs to be a civil war in the GOP, and the Rove/Cheney branch needs to win. It would help the Democrats win seats in the short run and help our country be less stupid in the long run.
  18. Well, he is a fucking moron who does shit for no logical reason. He didn't take a sharpie to a weather map because he was trying to blackmail anyone. He didn't suggest ingesting bleach as part of some diabolic plan. He is absolutely fucking stupid. So, the possibility that this was some sort of idiotic power play with no identifiable endgame is absolutely possible. It's also possible he is a fucking idiot who had some half-baked scheme of how he was going to continue to convert his position for money. Shun away.
  19. Oh, without a doubt, they are putting up shit candidates like Oz and Walker. But that's a symptom of the same disease. Those candidates are being nominated by the Republican party. Over 50% of Republican voters in Georgia looked at Walker and not only said, "that guy should be a Senator" but also said, "that guy will win the general." They are that out of touch.
  20. I tend to lean this direction as well. The safe is what gives me pause. If he had something in the safe, that's not just a question of throwing all the shit in a box and stupidly claiming rights over it. That would require some level of filtering, recognition of value, and dedicating resources to protect it. I want to know what was in the safe.
  21. It would be awesome to watch some long established incumbents like Rubio and Johnson fall. Mitch can talk about "candidate quality" all he wants, but when people who used to win elections can no longer win elections, that's not candidate quality. That's a party who is out of step with the American public. There are no Biden coattails here. There is no economic boom helping the majority party. For Republican incumbents to lose in this environment would be a huge warning sign for the GOP. Having it happen in swings states like Florida and Wisconsin would put it in flashing neon.
  22. That article does two things: 1. Names the scapegoat; 2. Portrays the issue as an honest (if completely stupid) disagreement over what rights a former President has to retain documents. It is an article that paints the best possible picture of Trump from the known data points. It's possible it is true. But, it's coming from the Trump camp and presents the best case interpretation. So, big grain of salt.
  23. They are self selecting. You can bet that Dotard is only going to work with major vendors who “put skin in the game” and overextend credit. Developers try to do that kind of shit all the time. Probably the only thing that Trump is effective at is getting a line of rubes who will line up for the opportunity.
  24. I don't know how the average Ukrainian can walk down the street. If I had balls that big, it would really interfere with my gait.
×
×
  • Create New...