This is the Republican Party

[HuffyCane]

According to the New York Times and the HHS Inspector General, In the last three years 325,000 children have come to the United States without their parents. Typically, their parents crossed illegally and have worked here a sufficient amount of time to arrange with smugglers to bring their children up in exchange for a period of labor at reduced wages. Either the parent, the child or both.

The kids were in the custody of the federal government until released to persons claiming to be parents or sponsors. The government has no idea where any of those children are but we know hundreds of them have wound up working in U.S. factories against their will. And a few have been documented to be working in the sex trade. Significant numbers of them are now operating in street gangs. About 1000 of them were not kids at all but adults looking for better treatment or perverts. A few committed murders before returning to Central America.

While the death of a single young woman is tragic, none of the facts mentioned above, well known to all members of Congress, have moved the needle. Neither has the countless stories in the past like this senseless murder.

Nothing is going to happen on the legislative side.

 

[HuffyCane]

Yeah, lack of detention space really requires action from congress. Just like Trump had trouble funding the wall, so would Biden have trouble funding additional detention space, and additional staff to attend to it. Biden might be able to work around funding better than Trump did. Considering additional detention space could be less costly than the wall, but it really needs congress to act.

Detention for a child is $1000.00 per day per child. Kids arriving like the 325,000 mentioned above will be in custody for up to 17 years before being released. Most around 90 to 180 days. Do the math — Assuming that adequate education, medical and legal facilities do not need to be constructed. Then we are talking billions. And the country they left has to want to take them back and they have to be safe when they get there. Congress isn’t going to build family detention as a prelude to deportation, even if the federal courts would allow it which they don’t. If you are not deporting them, why are you paying to hold them? You do risk balancing. You decide you are going to do triage identification and release them to make room for those arriving tomorrow. You know that statistically murders like this are inevitable and they accept those risks. So this isn’t a surprise on the Democrat side. The result is expected. It’s just not expected on the front page. I’ve been wrong before, but Congress won’t do a thing.

And the kids are the easy part to solve. They get out at 18 and the program is closely monitored by a federal court to ensure they are properly cared for add released as quickly as possible. $300 million a year in free legal advice keeps their class action court case going for the last 40 years.

The guy that committed this murder is a military age male from a country we cannot return him to. He likely fled that country because of felonious behavior there. Are you going to detain him indefinitely with your new money from Congress? Because he ain’t going back and he shouldn’t have been released before this murder. Had he stayed in custody the earliest he can see a judge is 8 years from now at $500 to $700 a day. But we don’t hold people in custody in this country indefinitely unless we are at war. Nor should we pay for it. So is billions in detention space really a solution? Is it worth slugging it out in Congress if you know it won’t solve the problem? Maybe you just maintain the status quo so you can continue to virtue signal and raise money no matter which side you are on. If you actually gave the tools to the people who know how to do this right, who are willing to undertake the unsavory parts of law enforcement the elites wont talk about at parties, you wouldn’t have a program to embarrass the other side with and raise money off of, would you?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Detention for a child is $1000.00 per day per child. Kids arriving like the 325,000 mentioned above will be in custody for up to 17 years before being released. Most around 90 to 180 days. Do the math — Assuming that adequate education, medical and legal facilities do not need to be constructed. Then we are talking billions. And the country they left has to want to take them back and they have to be safe when they get there. Congress isn’t going to build family detention as a prelude to deportation, even if the federal courts would allow it which they don’t. If you are not deporting them, why are you paying to hold them? You do risk balancing. You decide you are going to do triage identification and release them to make room for those arriving tomorrow. You know that statistically murders like this are inevitable and they accept those risks. So this isn’t a surprise on the Democrat side. The result is expected. It’s just not expected on the front page. I’ve been wrong before, but Congress won’t do a thing.

And the kids are the easy part to solve. They get out at 18 and the program is closely monitored by a federal court to ensure they are properly cared for add released as quickly as possible. $300 million a year in free legal advice keeps their class action court case going for the last 40 years.

The guy that committed this murder is a military age male from a country we cannot return him to. He likely fled that country because of felonious behavior there. Are you going to detain him indefinitely with your new money from Congress? Because he ain’t going back and he shouldn’t have been released before this murder. Had he stayed in custody the earliest he can see a judge is 8 years from now at $500 to $700 a day. But we don’t hold people in custody in this country indefinitely unless we are at war. Nor should we pay for it. So is billions in detention space really a solution? Is it worth slugging it out in Congress if you know it won’t solve the problem? Maybe you just maintain the status quo so you can continue to virtue signal and raise money no matter which side you are on. If you actually gave the tools to the people who know how to do this right, who are willing to undertake the unsavory parts of law enforcement the elites wont talk about at parties, you wouldn’t have a program to embarrass the other side with and raise money off of, would you?

I was talking about detention space for the 26 year old before he committed murder.(When he harmed a minor.) I really don't care whether the country wants him back or not. He is a citizen of their country. If they don't want him back, then we threaten to take out sanctions on them. Drop him in their country on the streets if they don't cooperate. They'll take him when the first one we drop on their streets commits a very public murder. What's Venezuela going to do to us if we drop him in their streets. I don't think they can do anything to us right now. It's not even like when Hugo Chavez was alive.

Us holding the guy for 8 years before he can see a judge is BS. That's why it was bs that Democrats didn't do anything before. It's why it was silly of the Republicans to get the majority and not bring a bill before congress. And that's certainly why it's really stupid for the Republicans to have the Democrats between a rock and a hard place now, and get them to make all those concessions, and not vote on the bill they composed. All this just so Trump can warp it into something he uses on the campaign trail.

You know if Trump wins, and the Democrats have a majority, or the GOP has a slim Republican majority, that the Democrats will not honor those compromises later on. The situation with Ukraine & Israel will have passed us by way before January of next year. For all I care we can drop him out with a parachute, and tell Venzuela where he'll be about 30s after he lands.

 

[aTUfan]

Detention for a child is $1000.00 per day per child. Kids arriving like the 325,000 mentioned above will be in custody for up to 17 years before being released. Most around 90 to 180 days. Do the math — Assuming that adequate education, medical and legal facilities do not need to be constructed. Then we are talking billions. And the country they left has to want to take them back and they have to be safe when they get there. Congress isn’t going to build family detention as a prelude to deportation, even if the federal courts would allow it which they don’t. If you are not deporting them, why are you paying to hold them? You do risk balancing. You decide you are going to do triage identification and release them to make room for those arriving tomorrow. You know that statistically murders like this are inevitable and they accept those risks. So this isn’t a surprise on the Democrat side. The result is expected. It’s just not expected on the front page. I’ve been wrong before, but Congress won’t do a thing.

And the kids are the easy part to solve. They get out at 18 and the program is closely monitored by a federal court to ensure they are properly cared for add released as quickly as possible. $300 million a year in free legal advice keeps their class action court case going for the last 40 years.

The guy that committed this murder is a military age male from a country we cannot return him to. He likely fled that country because of felonious behavior there. Are you going to detain him indefinitely with your new money from Congress? Because he ain’t going back and he shouldn’t have been released before this murder. Had he stayed in custody the earliest he can see a judge is 8 years from now at $500 to $700 a day. But we don’t hold people in custody in this country indefinitely unless we are at war. Nor should we pay for it. So is billions in detention space really a solution? Is it worth slugging it out in Congress if you know it won’t solve the problem? Maybe you just maintain the status quo so you can continue to virtue signal and raise money no matter which side you are on. If you actually gave the tools to the people who know how to do this right, who are willing to undertake the unsavory parts of law enforcement the elites wont talk about at parties, you wouldn’t have a program to embarrass the other side with and raise money off of, would you?

we owe that money to disabled vets and first responders first.

 

[astonmartin708]

I don’t give a crap about immigration right now. The Dems put out an olive branch on immigration in exchange for continued funding of Democracy and the Republicans in congress snapped it in half. One murder by an immigrant is not more important than thousands of murders by non immigrants.

Right now I would like the Conservative Party to stay the hell out of our bedrooms. More and more it’s looking like they are trying to revert back to 1960.

 

[HuffyCane]

https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/venezuela-halts-flights-of-deported-migrants-from-u-s-and-mexico-962f6149

 

[HuffyCane]

I was talking about detention space for the 26 year old before he committed murder.(When he harmed a minor.) I really don't care whether the country wants him back or not. He is a citizen of their country. If they don't want him back, then we threaten to take out sanctions on them. Drop him in their country on the streets if they don't cooperate. They'll take him when the first one we drop on their streets commits a very public murder. What's Venezuela going to do to us if we drop him in their streets. I don't think they can do anything to us right now. It's not even like when Hugo Chavez was alive.

Us holding the guy for 8 years before he can see a judge is BS. That's why it was bs that Democrats didn't do anything before. It's why it was silly of the Republicans to get the majority and not bring a bill before congress. And that's certainly why it's really stupid for the Republicans to have the Democrats between a rock and a hard place now, and get them to make all those concessions, and not vote on the bill they composed. All this just so Trump can warp it into something he uses on the campaign trail.

You know if Trump wins, and the Democrats have a majority, or the GOP has a slim Republican majority, that the Democrats will not honor those compromises later on. The situation with Ukraine & Israel will have passed us by way before January of next year. For all I care we can drop him out with a parachute, and tell Venzuela where he'll be about 30s after he lands.

You can’t just fly a plane into the restricted air space of a country or land without authorization. Much less leave people on the tarmac without authorization to enter. You could kill other people flying in other planes even if you were willing to risk war or the Cubans buzzing Miami the next day. Or El Salvador emptying their prisons and landing charter flights of Con Air in El Paso.

 

[noble cane]

I don’t give a crap about immigration right now. The Dems put out an olive branch on immigration in exchange for continued funding of Democracy and the Republicans in congress snapped it in half. One murder by an immigrant is not more important than thousands of murders by non immigrants.

Right now I would like the Conservative Party to stay the hell out of our bedrooms. More and more it’s looking like they are trying to revert back to 1960.

Are you not getting your envelopes of laundered Benjamins any more?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

You can’t just fly a plane into the restricted air space of a country or land without authorization. Much less leave people on the tarmac without authorization to enter. You could kill other people flying in other planes even if you were willing to risk war or the Cubans buzzing Miami the next day. Or El Salvador emptying their prisons and landing charter flights of Con Air in El Paso.

I was just venting. I thought the paratrooper drop ought to have clued 'you' in.

 

[lawpoke87]

I don’t give a crap about immigration right now.

The response I expected. Thankfully the majority of Americans disagree.

I do agree with the bedroom comment. Government has been far too involved with what I believe are our individual civil liberties in recent years.

 

[aTUfan]

I don’t give a crap about immigration right now. The Dems put out an olive branch on immigration in exchange for continued funding of Democracy and the Republicans in congress snapped it in half. One murder by an immigrant is not more important than thousands of murders by non immigrants.

Right now I would like the Conservative Party to stay the hell out of our bedrooms. More and more it’s looking like they are trying to revert back to 1960.

the bill contained funding for fronts for hamas.I

 

[HuffyCane]

the bill contained funding for fronts for hamas.I

As well as the cartels.

 

[aTUfan]

As well as the cartels.

does that make sense?

 

[astonmartin708]

does that make sense?

So amend it dear Liza

 

[Gmoney4WW]

That was ridiculous when they declared Trump ineligible in Colorado, Massachusetts, etc and they should have known it would be shot down in the courts. But this deal where Scotus is going to hear Trump's immunity claim, for classified documents case, is ridiculous. Scotus is just allowing him another delay for a case they should never allow to come before them. The conservative justices have just intentionally allowed him a delay.

 

[lawpoke87]

That was ridiculous when they declared Trump ineligible in Colorado, Massachusetts, etc and they should have known it would be shot down in the courts. But this deal where Scotus is going to hear Trump's immunity claim, for classified documents case, is ridiculous. Scotus is just allowing him another delay for a case they should never allow to come before them. The conservative justices have just intentionally allowed him a delay.

Speaking of…a Democratic Circuit Court Judge in Chicago to just ruled Trump is ineligible to appear on the Illinois primary ballot. A Democratic circuit court judge….crazy times.

I expect the Supremes to rule against Trump here. I’ve been batting 1000 lately on Supreme Court rulings (Biden’s EOs, Feds border authority, etc..). Curious to see what the DOJ will do with Trump and classified docs after deciding not to prosecute a similar aged President for the same charge.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Speaking of…a Democratic Circuit Court Judge in Chicago to just ruled Trump is ineligible to appear on the Illinois primary ballot. A Democratic circuit court judge….crazy times.

I expect the Supremes to rule against Trump here. I’ve been batting 1000 lately on Supreme Court rulings (Biden’s EOs, Feds border authority, etc..). Curious to see what the DOJ will do with Trump and classified docs after deciding not to prosecute a similar aged President for the same charge.

Not the same thing whether it's with aged president or not. He intentionally did not cooperate with the courts and the agency demanding those documents. Biden immediately cooperated when they asked for them back. Nothing to do with being aged, related to cooperating. No memory issues involved in cooperating. He kept them for many months after they asked for them at least twice.

 

[astonmartin708]

Speaking of…a Democratic Circuit Court Judge in Chicago to just ruled Trump is ineligible to appear on the Illinois primary ballot. A Democratic circuit court judge….crazy times.

I expect the Supremes to rule against Trump here. I’ve been batting 1000 lately on Supreme Court rulings (Biden’s EOs, Feds border authority, etc..). Curious to see what the DOJ will do with Trump and classified docs after deciding not to prosecute a similar aged President for the same charge.

Not too impressive when the current makeup of the court makes most issues a foregone conclusion. If I'm upset about anything with the Democrats it's that they gave away 2016 because of the Shennanigans with Bernie. That is going to be the most prolonged failure the party has to live through since.....Carter? Vietnam?

 

[lawpoke87]

Not the same thing whether it's with aged president or not. He intentionally did not cooperate with the courts and the agency demanding those documents. Biden immediately cooperated when they asked for them back. Nothing to do with being aged, related to cooperating. No memory issues involved in cooperating. He kept them for many months after they asked for them at least twice.

If they charge him with not cooperating that’s one thing. However, the DOJ found the Biden willfully possessed classified documents. Going to difficult to charge him with that imo without appearing political. Especially since it’s Biden’s DOJ.

 

[lawpoke87]

Not too impressive when the current makeup of the court makes most issues a foregone conclusion. If I'm upset about anything with the Democrats it's that they gave away 2016 because of the Shennanigans with Bernie. That is going to be the most prolonged failure the party has to live through since.....Carter? Vietnam?

Didn’t you predict the Court would rule in favor of Texas in their border dispute with the Fed’s? I’ve tried to base my predictions based solely on the correct legal ruling as I viewed it. Regardless of which political side the issue at hand fell on. Texas and Trump immunity on one side. Biden’s unconstitutional EOs on the other. All were correct imo

 

[HuffyCane]

If they charge him with not cooperating that’s one thing. However, the DOJ found the Biden willfully possessed classified documents. Going to difficult to charge him with that imo without appearing political. Especially since it’s Biden’s DOJ.

This is exactly correct. He’s been charged with three distinct crimes. Possession of classified documents. Refusal to return them. Lying/obstructing lawful investigation. On the possession charge it will be difficult to reconcile not prosecuting several current and former presidents for that behavior but going forward against President Trump. Especially with the Dem press floating news spin that Trump is just as forgetful as Biden. You can bet that will be hammered during voir dire asking jurors about any bias related to not prosecuting Biden, if the judge allows the lawyers to ask questions themselves.

Reasonable minds can disagree that whether the evidence of intent to defy the inquiries from government representatives as well as the FBI is evidence of a malice to obstruct justice but it’s the best argument why the cases are distinguishable.

The biggest problem President Trump has is he was caught on tape apparently discussing classified materials. That was the refrain we heard for months. Until this report revealed that Biden did the same thing.

His biggest legal exposure is the obstruction charge which is fairly simple and straight forward. One year lawyers try those charges each day.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

If they charge him with not cooperating that’s one thing. However, the DOJ found the Biden willfully possessed classified documents. Going to difficult to charge him with that imo without appearing political. Especially since it’s Biden’s DOJ.

Biden sends them to the bureau immediately after they requested specific documents. Then has an independent company search his other premises to find anything else he 'might have forgotten.' There is an out, related to memory there. The fact that they didn't carry through with the charges of him willfully having such documents was alleviated by him returning them immediately after he was asked for them. That allows for his defense that he only had them because he forgot about them. Trump does not have that defense.

They had been demanding specific documents numerous times for over a year, when Trump suddenly found some of them. Then they had to raid Mar a Lago to get the documents that they again asked for, 5 months after they demanded them on numerous occasions? He never even attempted to return the ones asked for that were discovered in the raid. And there was video evidence that they had been moved during those 5 months, as well as testimony about Trump attempting to delete the video evidence that they recovered. Not to mention the exorbitant wages Trump was suddenly paying to said staff.

Trump cannot use his memory as an excuse of why he didn't return the documents whereas Biden could use that excuse and it would be difficult to disprove. Willful is hard to prove against Biden, and easy to prove against Trump. Completely different situation.

 

[HuffyCane]

You are leaving out the part where for forty years Biden sat through required refresher trainings on how to handle classified documents and why it’s a felony to remove then from secured areas. All the while surely knowing he had done just that.

Giving the money back you stole from the bank when they ask for it back doesn’t make you less a thief than the robber who won’t give it back. It might play into sentencing but it doesn’t negate guilt.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

You are leaving out the part where for forty years Biden sat through required refresher trainings on how to handle classified documents and why it’s a felony to remove then from secured areas. All the while surely knowing he had done just that.

Giving the money back you stole from the bank when they ask for it back doesn’t make you less a thief than the robber who won’t give it back. It might play into sentencing but it doesn’t negate guilt.

Most if not all Presidents(against regulations) take classified documents to non secure areas. Every president that has served over the past 50 years minimum has done that. Yes that is illegal, but they are not going to make Biden or Trump be the first to pay for an action that every President in office has done, in said duties as President. They can prosecute for not returning said documents when asked for them. Biden did so. Trump did not.

 

[lawpoke87]

Most if not all Presidents(against regulations) take classified documents to non secure areas. Every president that has served over the past 50 years minimum has done that. Yes that is illegal, but they are not going to make Biden or Trump be the first to pay for an action that every President in office has done, in said duties as President. They can prosecute for not returning said documents when asked for them. Biden did so. Trump did not.

That is simply not as the law reads. You can’t willfully rob a bank but not be guilty of said crime because you gave the money back when asked. There is no legal get out of jail free card for returning what amounts to stolen classified documents.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

That is simply not as the law reads. You can’t willfully rob a bank but not be guilty of said crime because you gave the money back when asked. There is no legal get out of jail free card for returning what amounts to stolen classified documents.

So said President did not steal the documents, they just took them to a place without a skif, to do their duties as President/Vice President. Yes you are not supposed to take them to a place without a skif, but that does not mean you are stealing them, if you are taking them to do your duties as President/Vice President. You are taking them to a non secure area, which is mishandling them. Which every President in the past has done. Kennedy, Reagan, Ciinton, Bush, etc have all done this, I am sure. None of them stole documents, they mishandled them. Trump did not steal the documents, nor did Biden.

The problem is they did not return them to the government when they left office. That is when they possessed them when they should not have. But they never stole them. Retention after your duties are over is not stealing them.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

My problem is not with Scotus taking this up, and hearing the case. My problem is that they did not take it on in December when Jack Smith implored them to take up this case. They helped Trump by letting it go to the to the DC circuit, when they knew then that they really should have taken the case. It is an intentional delay, for Trump's benefit. They will not allow him immunity, but the case will be delayed enough to put it in conflict with the election in November. They should have taken it up in December, but refused. They knew then the importance of this case.

 

[aTUfan]

Speaking of…a Democratic Circuit Court Judge in Chicago to just ruled Trump is ineligible to appear on the Illinois primary ballot. A Democratic circuit court judge….crazy times.

I expect the Supremes to rule against Trump here. I’ve been batting 1000 lately on Supreme Court rulings (Biden’s EOs, Feds border authority, etc..). Curious to see what the DOJ will do with Trump and classified docs after deciding not to prosecute a similar aged President for the same charge.

what was the reason?

 

[HuffyCane]

So said President did not steal the documents, they just took them to a place without a skif, to do their duties as President/Vice President. Yes you are not supposed to take them to a place without a skif, but that does not mean you are stealing them, if you are taking them to do your duties as President/Vice President. You are taking them to a non secure area, which is mishandling them. Which every President in the past has done. Kennedy, Reagan, Ciinton, Bush, etc have all done this, I am sure. None of them stole documents, they mishandled them. Trump did not steal the documents, nor did Biden.

The problem is they did not return them to the government when they left office. That is when they possessed them when they should not have. But they never stole them. Retention after your duties are over is not stealing them.

SCIF. Secured Compartmented Information Facility.

You are confusing prosecutorial discretion not to charge and try popular figures because they lack a certainty that the jury will convict them. They fear “jury nullification” which itself is illegal when a jury decides to ignore their oath to return a verdict of guilty when the facts are established beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has occurred. Deciding not to charge a President is different than the President didn’t do something that would be illegal for anyone else.

And you are correct technically I guess sorta. But not in the way you want it to be correct. The law does treat the mishandling of classified information differently than the petit theft of government documents or the non-criminal act of retaining presidential records as you point out. But they treat it differently in that the penalties are much greater and mandatory prison time is required without a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines.

Finally, it’s absurd to suggest that a man who ignored the warnings (linked below) on every cover sheet of every classified document he ever viewed for forty years, said cover sheets telling him that it’s criminal to do what you are suggesting isn’t really criminal, then kept it for forty years because he planned on making millions off his book deals, admitted it to other people on a routine basis, isn’t guilty of a crime. He wasn’t “doing his job” — he admitted on tape supposedly he took the documents to work on his memoirs. Recordings now in the possession of the FBI after his employee destroyed those recordings after being asked for them by law enforcement. Even if there was inadvertent mishandling that is still a crime and he knew it. Keeping the documents for forty years after being on notice there was a mishandling is in itself evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Feel free to take your boss’s customer list with you after you get fired while you exploit it for personal profit and see if your boss, the police, the jury and the judge disagree that you “mishandled” it.

https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/sf703.pdf

 

[aTUfan]

hrc just got a slap on the wrist. jb just got a slap on the wtist.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

then kept it for forty years because he planned on making millions off his book deals, admitted it to other people on a routine basis, isn’t guilty of a crime. He wasn’t “doing his job” — he admitted on tape supposedly he took the documents to work on his memoirs. Recordings now in the possession of the FBI after his employee destroyed those recordings after being asked for them by law enforcement. Even if there was inadvertent mishandling that is still a crime and he knew it. Keeping the documents for forty years after being on notice there was a mishandling is in itself evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Feel free to take your boss’s customer list with you after you get fired while you exploit it for personal profit and see if your boss, the police, the jury and the judge disagree that you “mishandled” it.

Quit condescending to me. I was tired and wasn't thinking about the words I was abbreviating when I was posting last night, before going to bed. Posting that classified cover page, more condescension. Like I haven't seen stuff like that before. Stop being an ass.

I didn't hear any of the stuff you mentioned because I didn't read details of the testimony/tapes and/or rumored conversational talk about keeping it for 40 years, for memoirs outlined in above post. Why do you keep talking about 'for 40 years' though. Wasn't this stuff from Obama's two terms in office. Was he going to leave his unpublished memoirs for several years after his death. Those documents are 8-15 years old, and he's 81. He's probably going to die in the next decade, likely the next five years. Is his family or a publisher going to keep the memoirs for at least another 15 years after his death?

It gets a little dicier if there is substantiated testimony and/or recordings about him keeping the documents for the express purpose of writing his memoirs. But I don't see how profit motive comes into play if you are talking about keeping it for 40 years since he will have been dead for 15+ years. Profit for who, his kids? Even if published when he was alive, I don't think he would ever spend that money in the short period he was alive. It is for his legacy, not profit.

An aside: I am pretty certain others have written notes for their memoirs in which they used classified documents as background to compose the notes, and later made certain there was no references that would break the classified information rules. It may have been from memory of those classified documents(by other presidents) but also I'm sure from notes jotted down while having those documents in hand. I can't imagine the final draft would contain anything except a general reference that would not break the rules in Biden's case, and in all other Presidents cases.

All that though is neither here nor there. For all intents and purposes, I need to find a few more references to those recordings than I have read about before, to make sure my opinion still stands up.

 

[astonmartin708]

Didn’t you predict the Court would rule in favor of Texas in their border dispute with the Fed’s? I’ve tried to base my predictions based solely on the correct legal ruling as I viewed it. Regardless of which political side the issue at hand fell on. Texas and Trump immunity on one side. Biden’s unconstitutional EOs on the other. All were correct imo

I have zero faith in this court making the correct legal ruling in the biggest cases. A single case where they actually stuck to precedent does not make me feel any more comfortable with the court’s integrity considering the amount of opinions they have handed down that were dubious.

You just happen to agree with the current court’s interpretations and value judgements, most Americans don’t.

 

[HuffyCane]

Biden pictures himself as a Churchillian figure destined to greatness and historical importance.

I said 40 years but I should have said 50 since there’s reason to believe he started doing this in 1973.

He retained classified documents at the secret level from his foreign trips abroad during the 1970’s. He did so, we know from his ghost writers recorded interviews with him, because he viewed it as inevitable that he would eventually write his memoirs.

Documents with classified markings from his 1979 visit to the Soviet Union were found in his home. It would appear he forgot he had them. They are of particular interest because they could reveal intelligence gathering methods that could put lives at risk today. We don’t know nor should we know.

Thats the rub with this stuff. The news and the bloggers treat it like a game or the “your guy is much more guilty than my guy” routine.

Whats really going on is it appears both of these people put lives at risk for their vanity and profit. One did it over a period of a few months. Another did it over several decades in multiple locations and was subject to multiple searches of the same location because 13 hours of searching by the FBI still didn’t find them all at one location and he had no idea what he still had and where it was, much less take steps to secure it from his drug addict son living in the house with worldwide contacts some of whom do business with our enemies and competitors.

Making notes of classified documents is just as illegal as removing the documents themselves. More so in fact because they don’t bear the appropriate markings to alert others of their nature or remind you to store them with the docs they reference. Even writing CAT on a piece of paper as an acronym is a no-no. You can take notes. You just can’t walk out with them.

Reagan had volumes of detailed diaries completed almost every night. Much of it was classified. He claimed it was his property. Because it contained classified information, it wasn’t his property. He should have been prosecuted. He wasn’t.

 

[HuffyCane]

Willful is hard to prove against Biden, and easy to prove against Trump. Completely different situation.

Every lawyer in America except Jim Comey agrees that there is no willfulness element in the crime. Nor is it a specific intent crime. You only need prove the general intent to commit the act (intend to walk out the door with the document) or a reckless disregard resulting in retention of the document (taking a briefcase or box into a SCIF where the papers are mixed up with unclassified materials or allowing an aide to hurriedly pack up a box on January 19th that ends up filled with papers like last weeks grocery list, last year’s budget report and oh yeah all those documents on North Korea you shouldn’t have removed from the SCIF).

 

[lawpoke87]

I have zero faith in this court making the correct legal ruling in the biggest cases. A single case where they actually stuck to precedent does not make me feel any more comfortable with the court’s integrity considering the amount of opinions they have handed down that were dubious.

You just happen to agree with the current court’s interpretations and value judgements, most Americans don’t.

I actually cited 3 cases but ok. Again…you were wrong about the Texas border case and I anticipate you will be wrong again regarding blanket immunity. All have been adjudicated according to precedent and proper interpretations of the law. (The unconstitutional EOs were easy). Which I how I’ve been able to predict these decisions.

 

[astonmartin708]

I actually cited 3 cases but ok. Again…you were wrong about the Texas border case and I anticipate you will be wrong again regarding blanket immunity. All have been adjudicated according to precedent and proper interpretations of the law. (The unconstitutional EOs were easy). Which I how I’ve been able to predict these decisions.

Many of the courts decisions in the past 3 years can be argued to be technically correct given the laws on the books… but so could Dredd Scott, the courts’ civil rights roll backs of the 1880’s , Plessy v Ferguson and hundreds of others which established poor precedents for society.

I think this court much like those in the scott or plessy era have a flawed view of right and wrong and it’s based on the opinions of a minority of citizens in the United States. I think this court‘s makeup has it set to be on the wrong side of history.

 

[lawpoke87]

Many of the courts decisions in the past 3 years can be argued to be technically correct given the laws on the books… but so could Dredd Scott, the courts’ civil rights roll backs of the 1880’s , Plessy v Ferguson and hundreds of others which established poor precedents for society.

I dont believe the court should be so wrapped up in the minutia of legal detail at the expense of ruling on what is morally correct, especially when so many of these legal details can be argued and interpreted in multiple ways.

What decisions are you referring to other than Roe v Wade which we’re in agreement? To put another way, which decisions have I agreed with which you believe are immoral and disliked by the majority of Americans?

 

[astonmartin708]

What decisions are you referring to other than Roe v Wade which we’re in agreement? To put another way, which decisions have I agreed with which you believe are immoral and disliked by the majority of Americans?

I anticipate that precedents like those allowing for discrimination based upon sex, religion, etc… such as the 303 Creative v. Elenis wont ultimately stand the test of time as society evolves. The EPA case on wetlands seems like it’s a bogus end around on the power of the government to regulate on the environment for purposes of public health and safety

The fact that the court is still grappling over what to do about gerrymandering and considers it permissible in any fashion is ludicrous (thats not just an issue on the conservative side btw)

I‘m not saying these rulings dont have legal foundations… they do… but their impacts dont align with how our country is evolving. Kind of like the sodomy cases of the 60’s / 70’s.

 

[lawpoke87]

I anticipate that precedents like those allowing for discrimination based upon sex, religion, etc… such as the 303 Creative v. Elenis wont ultimately stand the test of time as society evolves. The EPA case on wetlands seems like it’s a bogus end around on the power of the government to regulate on the environment for purposes of public health and safety

The fact that the court is still grappling over what to do about gerrymandering and considers it permissible in any fashion is ludicrous (thats not just an issue on the conservative side btw)

I‘m not saying these rulings dont have legal foundations… they do… but their impacts dont align with how our country is evolving. Kind of like the sodomy cases of the 60’s / 70’s.

Ironic you brought up 303 Creative. My website designer (and client) was recently asked to build a website advocating the “evils” of abortion. She is strongly pro-choice. She calls me up and asks me if she can decline based on her political and personal beliefs. People look at these decisions only based on the fact pattern at hand and fail to consider precedent and how they will affect other situations. I believe it was not only the correct application of law but the proper moral decision due to its vast implications on both sides of the political aisle. For example, if a member of the Klan walks in my office asking me to perform the legal work for the purchase of his business, I believe I should have the freedom to decline to help him purchase that property. He can go someone else

 

[aTUfan]

What decisions are you referring to other than Roe v Wade which we’re in agreement? To put another way, which decisions have I agreed with which you believe are immoral and disliked by the majority of Americans?

roe vs wade had little to do with abortion.

it was who had the authority to create the law. it ruled it was a state issue, much like legalized gambling, drinking age, death penalty, ...