SectionC3

Hoax. Neither situation is good. But not knowing is better than knowing and retaining national secrets for use as a party trick. Unless you’re MAGA. In which case it’s awesome and something to do just before you look at a meme about Hunter Biden’s laptop and then squirt Lysol on your eyes because you looked at a Biden.

He's tried that for awhile. He's the HCQ guy.

Hoax. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. He had stuff he knew he wasn’t supposed to have, and he hid it from the government once he became a private citizen again. All of this nonsense about how there’s some undefined constitutional issue based upon mystery language in that document and how it’s someone else’s fault because this fool wasn’t stopped before he had the chance to get himself in deeper completely misses the mark. And, I’ll note, your involuntary search suggestion seems like a gross violation of the constitutional right to be free from search and seizure. Or, what if we didn’t elect buttholes who ignored the law and instead chose leaders who think about more than themselves and prioritized national security documents instead of trying to secrete them for use as party tricks. This might be the stupidest thing on the internet today.

You still haven’t answered the question. You think this case presents a constitutional issue that should be determined immediately by SCOTUS. So, again, what part of the constitution is in question in this matter? That’s ridiculous. The charge, among other things, discourages the knowing retention of secret government documents. Give me a break.

Clarity of the law has nothing to do with where I think you’re fumbling around with going, FYI. Clarity relates to vagueness. You’re meandering toward contriving an equal protection issue. But you still don’t know how to get there or what part of this sacred document that you talk about all the time but apparently haven’t read is relevant to that approach.

Nice try. What’s the constitutional provision at issue in the scenario that you’ve articulated? It’s selective enforcement, not selected enforcement. Now—maybe—we’re getting somewhere. So, in your view, what part of the constitution is implicated here?

I don’t even know where to start on this nonsense. Stick to architecture. Or don’t. Whatever. Just don’t do law. If you can identify the constitutional provision at issue in this bizarre hypothetical, then let me know and maybe it might be worth thinking about discussing further.

A good chunk of the cultists really weren’t republicans until Trump. The republicans veered far right with his nationalism and alienated a lot of moderates and independents. Without changing their social agenda, republicans will never get them back. But if the social agenda moderates, they could build a coalition of normals and let the Trumpers scatter. There will be pain before profit if they take that approach, though - I completely agree with you there.

I’ll ask again: what is the constitutional question? It’s nice to drop the phrase. But you haven’t a clue what language or provision of the constitution is at issue. Saying it’s a constitutional issue doesn’t make it so. But that’s MAGA for you.

Hoax. Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID. For worms, yes, but not for that virus.

I disagree. Republicans have a “bill” to pay for Trump. They also know how bad the Trumpers are. One more loss in an even-year cycle and I think you’ll see them move faster to the center than maybe most expect.

So, what's the "very high level constitutional-type" dispute? The dispute is either constitutional, or it's not. So let's hear what it is. Frankly, you sound like just another MAGA who talks about the constitution but who hasn't actually, you know, read it.

What does that gibberish mean? If you mean that Congress is authorized to make laws by the Constitution, that Trump allegedly breached one of those laws, and that he's got to face the music, then I agree. And why would we change the rules to get this guy to the Supreme Court on what at this point is a factual issue? You might know a thing or two about architecture, but your views on this area of the law are uninformed and frankly stupid.

Hoax. I don't do your homework. Try not to squirt Lysol in your eyes today.

Hoax. Trump said they were returned. They weren’t. I believe in national security. You don’t. Sick and sad.

Once mainstream Republicans come around to this, we'll be in much better shape. The reality is that Trumpers are going to make this country more socially liberal. Republicans will move left on some social issues, because they can't win (even with Trumpers) without doing so. Indys will come back into play, and economics will dictate elections again. Trumpers will go back to being the marginalized whiners that they formerly were--many of them will wake up and become Democrats--and away we will go.

You talking about those cons that Trump pardoned?

On the bright side, in view of all of those donations I suppose it's a little harder for MAGA to buy opioids now. At least this way they'll have to choose more carefully between paying the site fee at the trailer park and playing fentanyl roulette.

They are consulted. They make a choice as to where to send their kids to school. At that point, the administrators and teachers step in and exercise professional judgment to educate the students in that school. If Moms for Liberty doesn't like it, then they're welcome to home school or choose a different environment for their little MAGAjugend.

That's good. An independent household within someone else's household. Well done!

My concern with trying this case is the threat to national security to the extent the trial judge allows/requires proof regarding the content of the subject documents. I suspect that cases like this would resolve through plea given that concern. But, Trump being the d-bag that he is, I don't know if he'd take the offer. And, I don't know if it would be extended in the first place because of the threat that he would take to Fox News and call the whole thing a hoax/coerced/whatever. So, depending on how bad the docs are that he allegedly took and retained, I'd be inclined to put him in the vise if I was Jack Smith.

I hope your basement is dry. It's gotta be tough to hate in dampness.

Hoax. I don’t believe in vigilante justice. Many of you apparently do. You also believe in such things as taking Ivermectin, the election hoax, the benefits of slavery to the enslaved, and squirting Lysol on the organs of COVID patients. Sick and sad!

They oughta try summa that in a small town. They'll hang them from the courthouse balcony in some of those backwater dumps!

Hoax. The obstruction (apparently, I haven't read the statute[s]) is criminalized for a reason. And, under your perverse view of the law, Trump had license and free reign to retain whatever secret he wanted, no matter its sensitivity, so long as the FBI eventually was able to overcome Trump's deceit and eventually track down the subject documents. The contortions MAGA will make to justify this guy's actions never cease to amaze me.