SoCal Deek

I think you missed it where I said I didn’t oppose the government getting the documents back. I oppose the way they did it and totally oppose the obstruction indictment.

Thanks Goose...a very close relative of mine held a very high security clearance as a private contractor. He was actually on the metro heading to the pentagon when the plane hit. I believe this is tricky when it comes to a former President, who I would offer is way more than an "elected official". While I have no problem with the government getting the documents back, the way that they did it was completely heavy handed and overtly political. And once the dispute of possession is remedied by the raid, then the obstruction charge is simply over the top...and done SOLELY to kneecap a political rival. It serves no other purpose. None.

Simple! You have to break some eggs to fundamentally transform an entire country. So if a few crooked politicians get rich in the meantime, that’s a small price to pay on the road to universal healthcare and a massive redistribution of wealth.

Comey famously said that no prosecutor would bring this case. Apparently he either lied to sway an election or he too believes that these laws/regulations are not well written. And in the Hilary Clinton matter he was talking about a Secretary of State….not a President. Goose has opined that this case is not about stolen secrets or espionage, but instead about obstruction. Which is another way of saying that Trump is being arrested for not agreeing with the other side of a legal dispute. Seems to me that the government could bring an obstruction charge in virtually every case where there’s such a dispute….but they don’t. Again, per Comey

Dude I’m typing with my thumb here! While others complain about the privacy features, I’m more concerned about the abysmal auto correct features! 😉

What most people don’t understand is that the Teachers Union pays for the campaign of just enough school board members to hold onto a simply majority.

Thanks Goose, that’s a much better response than Section who just wants to scream hoax. But I’ll put it to you if the laws are as clear as you make them out to be then why are all of these high level officials repeatedly breaking them? I put it to you, that much like a speed limit sign, the government has a responsibility to post that limit every so many miles so that drivers know what it is. Clearly our elected officials do not. So then it comes to selected enforcement of laws. If the government posts a speed limit sign but either never enforces it, or always plants a tree in front of it, then it’s what we call a ‘speed trap’. No?

If you're an expert on law, then we really are in trouble.

"Constitutional issues" refer to those that involve a dispute between the branches of government, or in this case the Executive Branch and the former head of the Executive Branch. Keep in mind, the Supreme Court doesn't only get involved in Constitutional issues, but they do get involved when an interpretation of the Constitution is at the center of a case. In these cases, they are not supposed to make a new law, but instead they tell the other two branches to author a new law (Congress), or administrate the existing laws in a different way (Executive Branch). Since here we have the newly installed Executive Branch arresting the head of the previous Executive Branch, the Court would opine on whether the existing laws are clear enough....which by the recent exposure of Biden, Pence, both Clintons, and Obama we can all see for a fact they are not.

I’ll try and explain …once again. The President has a very unique role in our system of government. He isn’t a Prime Minister. In other words he’s not just another member of Congress, like the Speaker. His powers and authority over the executive branch are unique. While I’m not a constitutional scholar I’m pretty sure that Classified Documents were not contemplated by the authors of the Constitution. Those documents didn’t exist then. So in essence this is a constitutional question as to whether there’s a debatable distinction. The Court would rule as to whether this is clearly spoken to in the Constitution and if not, they’d ask Congress to add clarity through legislation.

Thanks Frank..it’s an interesting question for sure, but in this particular conversation it’s not the right one. Somebody asked to define woke. I opined that at least in this country, right now, it’s the natural evolution of taking god out of society. In other words we currently have a society that is trying to define morality on the fly. And for many that ‘on the fly’ approach seems like driving a car at night without the headlights on. Whether you believe that a god-centered or not-centered is better, or worse, is another question.

Says the immature guy that keeps yelling hoax into the abyss. (And I know way more than a thing or two about architecture 😉). Yes, this is a very high level constitutional-type dispute. These issues do come up from time to time. I’m not sure what you think the Supreme Court’s purpose is, but EVERY case they hear is a dispute in which they’re asked to interpret, or require the amendment of, EXISTING laws.

A belief in a higher being is not an imperative….but it gives any society a far better shot.

I generally agree Frank. Two points: First, I said for years that the Fed should’ve been slowly raising rates in times of plenty so that they could then both raise and lower them should the need arise (luckily we didn’t need to lower them). Second, the administration’s recent bragging about the slowing of inflation is completely ridiculous. They are comparing the RATE of inflation, and not the EXISTENCE of inflation. It makes no difference to people if prices aren’t going up as fast if everything is already too expensive from the previous year’s inflation.

Frank, the question is NOT about about whether a society abides by laws. The question IS about which laws that society has chosen to abide by. And…Singapore? Really? That’s the goal? 😳

Yet another small, water bug type of receiver? I’m not sold. Feels like I’ve seen this movie before. My lone criteria is whether a receiver can catch and then keep the darn ball. So….can he?

Don’t be a child. I’ve tried to give a reasoned perspective on this legal dispute. You on the other hand simply want to scream into the echo chamber. There is only one President and there are only a few living ex-Presidents. This dispute is therefore incredibly unique and should have been argued and resolved in the framework of a constitutional clarification (possibly at the Supreme Court level).

I’ll make it simple for you: Woke is the natural end product of when a society purposefully and systematically takes God out of the equation. This story has been repeated throughout the ages. This is just the latest chapter.

Close, he would probably say “well since everything I have actually belongs to The State, I guess it was kind of them to let me keep my property for a while”. 😉

Not even close. The government knew where the documents were. They were not being hidden. They even had discussions with Trump’s legal team about the means to better secure them. In other words, this was a dispute, being discussed between the two parties. The one party resolved the dispute (by force) of the possession of the documents and then AFTER they now have the documents, they then indict the other party for in essence not agreeing with them about the possession issue. Seems to me with possession now a moot point, the party that ought to bring a suit is the party that the documents were taken from. And I’m pretty sure you would do the exact same thing if the government raided your house, while you weren’t home, and took ‘government’ documents that you believe are yours to have…and while not completely analogous….documents such as your drivers license, birth certificates, home title, marriage license…all of which are also government documents.

Again, John, really? The point I’m making is that if the dispute is over obstruction then it’s already been resolved when the government went and got them.

How dare that judge ask any questions! Shouldn’t KJP have jumped up like a Jack in the Box and told the judge she was being disrespectful! 😂😂😂

Thank you! I’ve been saying this about these email scandals for years! There are two people or more on an email…the sender and the recipients. So as in the case of Mrs Clinton, what was Obama doing with emails that were obviously coming in from an outside server? Sure….he and his I.T. Department knew nothing about it. Right! We have more security in place at my company than apparently exists at the White House.

Is the problem that she was naked AND fat? Crazy nutrition nazis!

Seems like there are an awful lot of white, connected, privileged folk being let off easy these days.