leh-nerd skin-erd

I’m on the edge of my seat B! Will it be those delivering late breaking news about DJT coordinating delivery of material to archivists? Or is it those who cite unaltered phone logs as proof positive alterations occurred? I’m off to check the WaPo—who according to one poster broke a story 50 years ago as proof positive that they were on to something—when I checked earlier the only story I could find was one about the cost of the Durham probe.

https://www.motorious.com/articles/news/wisconsin-rioters-loot/ Must have been difficult moving product with all the charring and whatnot.

Who’s “Melanie"?

It’s this kind of homespun messaging that makes you the obvious choice for moderator. No—not obvious damn it—you’re the only choice. Vive la révolution de l'Irv!

That’s worth considering to be sure. Let’s talk about that when they are proven to be correct. However, is it unfair or completely unreasonable to research a story beyond one report? In this case, the subject of the story issued a statement that flies in direct contrast to the version offered by the WaPo and their anonymous sourcing. Also, as I pointed out previously, a number of other news sources repeated the original story in virtually the same fashion, and cited the WaPo story as the source of their story. There was no mention on the statement issued from the spokesperson of the National Archives. Would you, Mr. Kemp, write that off to shoddy journalism, a simple misunderstanding, an unfortunate error, or to the fact that those sources must decide what to include/exclude in presenting the story to the American people? It’s entirely possible both sides are wrong, one is and one isn’t, or that the folks at the National Archives are in it for Trump. I’m simply applying the notion that the most likely explanation is the most logical. Finally, the WaPo coverage of the Russia investigation missed on virtually every key point it tried to hit on. I’ve never quite understood how with such highly developed and deeply embedded sources they didn’t know, for example, that the Obama admin was read in to concerns that the Clinton team was behind some of the Russia shenanigans as early as 2016. Or that they were unable to price together sourcing that would accurately predict the outcome of the Mueller investigation months before Mueller testified. But yeah, they were great in 1972, back when they were the only game in town, controlled the narrative and the letterman jacket still fit.

Have a good night. 💤

Your proof could have gone here. Your proof could have gone here. Maybe, though I am an army of one. Oh, and your proof could have gone here. That’s not what the nice folks from the National Archives said, and certainly not what your original “source” reported with deep, deep, deep sources. Which was it? Your proof could have gone here. What crime has he been charged with? He’s 75 years old and has been in the public eye for 55 years. He was vetted for the presidency, had a 4 year investigation undertaken by one of the finest law enforcement agencies in the world, and he’s been out of office for a year. Chuck Schumer said the intelligence community would find six ways to Sunday to get him. He ain’t not yet been got. You’re now fixating on National Archives stories they say don’t exist, changing the narrative from one day to the next, and wild ass conspiracy theories about logs that weren’t altered being THE lynchpin to this latest horse humpin you’re a party to. I’ve said it dozens of times. Let’s get to an actual crime. Anything J6 commission related is worthless to me—politically manipulated bullsh$t just like the Clinton committee. Your proof, btw, could have gone here.

Another LMAO? How much @ss can one person laugh off? You must be a biggun. At the risk of being unkind, again, your reading comprehension skills are terrible. I didn’t ask you to prove anything, I offered to review anything you might be able to send over that proved what you said. You keep sending things that prove only that you’re quite gullible, and that you’re not paying attention. You’re free to disregard the offer, I want you to know that. I won’t think you’re unable to do so. I promise. As for me being…naive….about…the J6 committee…having….? I’m having trouble piecing together that sentence. It reads like a Will Ferrell clip from Achorman. I think you’re suggesting that the January 6 committee has call logs not addressed in the article you linked, the one that speculated that the unaltered logs were somehow problematic? You sound certain this time! Surely, friend, you have a link to back up your declaration as to what they have? Red Rover! Red Rover! Send some proof on over! You know Doc, I think that’s actually part of the issue. The Records Act apparently allows the outgoing Pres to keep certain documents. I’m thinking Trump’s Team was sifting through and identifying documents they would like to keep. Of course this isn’t an FBI investigation like it was with, well you know.

Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. I was defending phone logs. The unaltered ones mentioned in the story. The ones that shocked you, apparently because the headline suggested they had been altered. It’s an odd story, admittedly, the one where phone logs are just phone logs. Offer still stands—if you can bring me something that actually purports to state what you seem to think it does, I’ll give you some feedback. Your ability to get confused at the headline is unreal. God bless.

This week, Billsy has been outraged over two stories. The first is a report that the National Archives worked with DJT to transport material from Florida to Washington. The second seems to be that he’s upset with phone logs. Who gets mad at phone logs? They’re the Easter Bunny of the administrative assistant world!

I see this as an opportunity to push a more progressive platform despite the potential harm it might cause in the short term. I would agree more moderate dems see her as a problem.

It depends on which dem them we're talking about.

Hey Mup--very cool! I knew you partied with the rich and famous, I just knew it. This guy is an amazing athlete and Olympian. Oh--back in the day I had a shot to get some photos with Jeff Blatnick (Olympic wrestler and local guy, RIP) but bailed because i didn't want to bother him. He was a big cat!

This one is obvious. The dems seem to be expecting trouble at the mid-terms. Something has to be done. So..COVID restrictions loosen. Next, the tired old man meets with NBC, he's easily confused by questions conflicts and countries, so NBC soon begins to question his sudden decline. Soon enough, old Joe is lead out of the White House, Kamala Harris is ushered in and all bets are off.

Well, I only have the National Archives statement that I previously provided you to go on. Here's what was said: "When a representative informed NARA in December 2021 that they located some records, NARA arranged for them to be securely transported to Washington. NARA officials did not visit or "raid" the Mar-a-Lago property." My guess is items were removed from Mara Lago because that's where they were in storage? Interestingly, in reading up on this, I discovered quite a bit about the Presidential Records Act. Turns out the outgoing president and his team are allowed to review material and determine which items represent personal items not required to be turned in to National Archives. It's seems likely that DJT and his team felt the items at Mara Lago not covered under the Records Act, and the records were there because they documented life/activity at the Southern White House. I also found out that when Prez Obama took over from Bill C, there was a 30 day rule for the new, incoming admin to turn over records at their disposal, and the Obama admin took a series of 30 day extensions that was unusual. Pushed it out quite a while, it seems. I wonder what that was all about. Anyway, I also read about 20 different reports on these records. Virtually every story has the same beginning, middle and end. Virtually every one cites the original WaPo story as the lynchpin of the story. Not one includes the statement from the folks at the gosh durn National Archives, yet I found it in 30 seconds. I feel like you fell for this sort of thing a couple times already?

Which brings us full circle. When will you be sending over the proof you’ve been hiding that proves your point? I didn’t debunk the WaPo article, that was the folks who the WaPo suggested had gone to war with Trump. How do you figure WaPo missed so badly on this story? Oh…damn…maybe they’re part of the Trump network of document ripper uppers? Very suspicious.

“Suspicious”?!! 🤣 Do tell. What sort of caper am I up to with the suspicious deleted internet post?

You’re now tracking deleted posts and demanding reasons why people deleted them? Ok Hannibal. 🤣

I realize you’re following this, and that BillSy isn’t going to step up and back up his claims, but I sent him this in response to his WaPo secret sources link. No response, no dialogue, no attempt at informed conversation, just a tap out and a Trump meme. https://www.newsweek.com/national-archives-denies-raiding-mar-lago-trump-documents-1677324?amp=1 "Throughout the course of the last year, NARA obtained the cooperation of Trump representatives to locate Presidential records that had not been transferred to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration," wrote the Archives in a statement.

Lots of yapping, so far, you’ve brought nothing to the table except anonymous sources that have been discredited. When you have something Skippy, feel free to link it here.

Well, I’m not a “Real Housewife of Atlanta” or a backup singer in an R&B cover band, so I don’t “throw shade” at anyone. I’ll remain ready and willing to discuss DJT doing “Exactly the same thing” as HRC once you bring something to the table to prove it. So far, you’ve brought nothing.

You’re making no sense. I explained why I wasn’t a fan of the chant. Read boy, read. I haven’t “defended” my right to vote, nor will I. Maybe you’re thinking of our angsty friend Kemp? Finally, Hillary Clinton’s issues were driven by the FBI, not Donald Trump. Know your history!

I can’t help you with your angst, or your silliness about autocrats and being under one’s thumb. I think it’s the byproduct of a fixed mindset and a tendency to become anxious as people get older. What I can tell you is I’m as free as I’ve ever been, in no short order I’ll be traveling about the US and taking a trip to Turks and Caicos for a fun vacation with my wife and other family members. When Trump was in office pre-COVID, people were working, people seemed generally happy, and unemployment for all was at historic lows. Under Biden…seems to be victimization politics is back in fashion, inflation is on the rise, jobs reports suck, and a morose has set in as he fumbles and bumbles along. He’s tapped out on COVID, seems to be clueless and thankfully for him, midterms are coming up and we’re hearing about getting past the vid! If the worst thing that happens today is you fret about who I might or might not vote for, my life is damn good. Why didn’t Eliot Spitzer go to jail?

Nice—an attempt at humor. I don’t find underwear and pulverized vegetable soup humor funny personally, but you traditionally represent as a humorless curmudgeon so it’s a positive development. I had no strong feelings about the Clinton email scandal one way or the other, beyond these two issues: In most other walks of life, I’d think a high profile FBI investigation into potential criminal activity, and the resultant analysis that the subject was extremely careless with extremely sensitive material would be a disqualifier for employment where that skillset was absolutely necessary; As I listened to Comey detail the mishandling of documents determined to be classified etc, I thought he was going to suggest a referral to the DOJ up until he provided the get out if jail free card and announced a prosecutor wouldn’t prosecute; I wasn’t a fan of the “lock her up” chant, it was pedestrian and shallow, though I suppose fun to chant at a political rally if you’re into that sort of thing. I thought Clinton would be president, that as an establishment politician she could do just about anything and would be protected as was her husband. That’s why I was a bit surprised by Comey’s presser before he wound back around to business as usual. Thankfully, Clinton’s actions ultimately proved a disqualifier for enough sensible people and off she went to the dustbin of history, complaining about coups, fixed elections and Russian spies hiding amongst us. Where Trump is concerned, let’s see where your big conspiracy theory ends up. You’re not off to a great start based on comments from those collecting documents. My prediction? You’ll end up wondering how and why you misread the tea leaves, again. Spoiler alert: We already know that extreme recklessness and careless disregard for extremely sensitive material isn’t a crime.

So you’re acknowledging that Hillary Clinton was extremely reckless as determined by the FBI, her actions were likely criminal? Why did you vote for her? I acknowledge that I have no idea what you are referencing. I’m aware of the Russia investigation, the twists, turns, allegations and investigations. He said nothing would come of it because it was a “witch hunt”. He was correct. I’m aware that the Dems proceeded with a partisan impeachment over allegations of wrongdoing with respect to Ukraine. I know that while he was impeached by the opposition, no wrong doing was ever established and he’s facing no charges for that. Again, DJT correctly predicted the outcome. I’m aware there is a committee established to look into the Jan 6 assault on the Capitol. I’m also aware the same folks that failed in 1 and 2 above are running the show in a fashion similar fashion. If what happened previously happens again, the Dems will fail, they will assure you they didn’t, and you’ll believe it. Trump likely will be proven correct again. Now, beyond that, what do you have for me in terms of Trump playing fast and lose with national security or not understanding how basic internet security works?