https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3189832161333337&set=a.1665736307076271

On 8/9/2022 3:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
> https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3189832161333337&set=a.1665736307076271

And didja' see the FBI confirmed its investigation into Kavanaugh was a
sham, at the request of the White House? Truly a President whose grasp
everything is above and whose character nothing is beneath...

On 8/9/2022 2:53 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/9/2022 3:24 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3189832161333337&set=a.1665736307076271
>>
>
> And didja' see the FBI confirmed its investigation into Kavanaugh was a
> sham, at the request of the White House?  Truly a President whose grasp
> everything is above and whose character nothing is beneath...

I didn't see anything said about Kavanaugh, but it's just another
travesty from the long list coming from the GQP. They no longer care
about the rule of law one iota.

In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
career reveals the depths of his megalomania.

On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
a revolution for again?"

Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.

Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.

When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."

Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
seems to be a dying American Republic.

First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
lacky in the media tried to frame it) to retrieve the classified documents.
If this is the case, then the obvious question hangs in the air like a foul
vapor: why was there no similar FBI raid on the home of Hillary Clinton
between 2014 and 2016? Unlike the president, who can declassify anything at
will, the former Secretary of State was served with a subpoena related to her
use of a private server in her Chappaqua home to conduct government business.
In response, her staffers destroyed several cell phones with a hammer and
bleach-bitted over 30,000 emails she claimed were merely of a personal, non-
governmental nature. You try that after a federal subpoena and see how long
before your door gets kicked in. "Well, we'd intended to delete them before
the subpoena, so..." Good luck with that.

We might also ask: how is it that Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), a sitting member
of Congress, can allegedly sleep with a Chinese Communist Party agent and is
not only allowed to remain free of investigation, but actually continues to
sit on the - wait for it - House Intelligence Committee?

Then there are the former NSA and CIA directors who demonstrably perjured
themselves before Congress only to be rewarded with media consulting gigs.
Why does Paul Pelosi's stock trading not get the Martha Stewart treatment?
Any bets on if his DUI vanishes without a trace, with no media curiosity as
to why? And, of course, there is the Hunter and Joe Biden multi-million
dollar influence-peddling racket and the many brazen crimes Hunter videotaped
himself committing.

It goes on and on, and nothing listed above is anything that hasn't already
been said a thousand times. Nevertheless, it bears repetition because as long
as these questions remain, Americans' trust in the government will continue
to erode. And why shouldn't it? It is as if these people somehow know that
they are immune from any legal consequences for their actions - that the
omnipotent State mechanism will move in to protect them. And it would seem
that it has done just that.

This, then, presents us with a second possible, and more sinister, motivation
for the raid: it was intended as a partisan projection of power and a message
to anyone with Trump's audacity to threaten the status quo. That same State
apparatus that has been so absent in the face of blatant illegalities and
improprieties committed by top Democrats has been ruthless in its pursuit of
those on the other side of the aisle, as Michael Flynn tragically learned the
hard way.

Only someone steeped in naivete, or hyper-partisan denial, could believe that
the raid on the Trumps' home was not at its core a political action. Some 30
federal agents spent a full day on the Mar-a-Lago grounds going through every
inch of the property. They even rifled through the former First Lady's
wardrobe closets while forcing Trump's lawyers to stand out in the scorching
Florida sun as the search went underway.

While the contents of the search warrant remain unknown, the pretext of
finding archive documents was reportedly used to enter the house of the party
in power's most dangerous and outspoken opponent in order to find something,
anything, damning enough to prevent his run for office against a failed
president in 2024. And they may find something accusatory... as they would
most likely find in any of our homes as well. Why? Because the legal statutes
have become so gargantuan that, as civil liberties attorney Harvey
Silverglate has pointed out, every day the average American commits three
felonies without even realizing it. This presents a target-rich environment
for a government machine looking to take down anyone standing in its way. As
Stalin's NKVD enforcer Lavrentiy Beria famously asserted: "Show me the man,
and I'll show you the crime."

The shift towards authoritarianism over the past decade has been a trend we
can no longer ignore. As The Daily Wire reported, according to a National
Issues Survey of 1,000 people, nearly eight in ten Americans, 79.3%,
responded that "[t]here are two tiers of justice in the American justice
system: one set of laws for politicians and Washington D.C. insiders vs. one
set of laws for everyday Americans." If there is any silver lining to the FBI
raid on the former president's residence, it is that it has now laid bare for
all to see the true corruption of the State. It is now known that there are
no lengths to which those in power won't go to in order to protect said power
and punish any who threaten to upend their lucrative apple cart.

Throughout my adult life, I have been a Democrat, a Republican, and now a
staunch Independent. I have voted across party lines in the past and have
abstained from certain elections when I found both candidates unworthy of my
vote. But I see now that there is no other way to vote than to remove this
corrupted and power-mad group of grifters from office. I loathe hyperbole -
we see it too often for too little - but I truly believe, barring shocking
evidence against Trump to the contrary, that the FBI raid places us at a
tipping point. The greatest myth of nations is permanence - that we are
somehow immune from the evils that have brought down great empires of the
past...tyranny, despotism, one-party rule, corruption at the highest levels,
a selective application of the laws for political ends, moral decay, and a
hubristic bureaucracy devoid of any accountability to the public. The framers
of our Constitution understood the darkening of men's hearts once they've
tasted power. Thus did they realize their new nation's system of government
could only function with checks and balances to hold at bay the very people
who would authorize a raid on a former president while their political allies
go forth and multiply without fear of consequence.

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>
> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
> a revolution for again?"
>
> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>
> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>
> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>
> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>
> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
> lacky in the media tried to frame it)

Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?

"Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
the needs of the Agenda.

Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
be nothing but an illegal home invasion.

> to retrieve the classified documents.

The president is the supreme classification authority in the U.S.
government. He can literally classify or declassify anything on his own
volition, literally just by saying so. No paperwork is even required. Trump
could claim he declassified all the documents before he left office and it
would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
did not-- a near impossible hurdle to clear.

> If this is the case, then the obvious question hangs in the air like a foul
> vapor: why was there no similar FBI raid on the home of Hillary Clinton
> between 2014 and 2016? Unlike the president, who can declassify anything at
> will, the former Secretary of State was served with a subpoena related to her
> use of a private server in her Chappaqua home to conduct government business.
> In response, her staffers destroyed several cell phones with a hammer and
> bleach-bitted over 30,000 emails she claimed were merely of a personal, non-
> governmental nature. You try that after a federal subpoena and see how long
> before your door gets kicked in. "Well, we'd intended to delete them before
> the subpoena, so..." Good luck with that.

One important point was left out: Hillz has that all important D next to
her name. That buys you privilege not enjoyed by those without it.

> We might also ask: how is it that Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), a sitting member
> of Congress, can allegedly sleep with a Chinese Communist Party agent and is
> not only allowed to remain free of investigation, but actually continues to
> sit on the - wait for it - House Intelligence Committee?

I bet he misses Fang Fang. Theirs was a love for the ages.

> Then there are the former NSA and CIA directors who demonstrably perjured
> themselves before Congress only to be rewarded with media consulting gigs.
> Why does Paul Pelosi's stock trading not get the Martha Stewart treatment?

And why did Pelosi's kid get to go to Taiwan with her at taxpayer expense?
And why did Pelosi's staff scrub all record of his presence on the trip
from the official manifests for the government plane she took? And wouldn't
altering official documents be a crime?

> Any bets on if his DUI vanishes without a trace, with no media curiosity as
> to why? And, of course, there is the Hunter and Joe Biden multi-million
> dollar influence-peddling racket and the many brazen crimes Hunter videotaped
> himself committing.

Joe Biden expects me to take him seriously on his gun control efforts when
he won't even hold his own kid responsible for committing a federal felony
and violating the gun laws we already have on the books.

When he posted videos of himself-- a prohibited person due to his drug use
and criminal record-- waving a gun around on social media, there curiously
was no FBI or BATF raid of his residence.

> It goes on and on, and nothing listed above is anything that hasn't already
> been said a thousand times. Nevertheless, it bears repetition because as long
> as these questions remain, Americans' trust in the government will continue
> to erode. And why shouldn't it? It is as if these people somehow know that
> they are immune from any legal consequences for their actions - that the
> omnipotent State mechanism will move in to protect them. And it would seem
> that it has done just that.
>
> This, then, presents us with a second possible, and more sinister, motivation
> for the raid: it was intended as a partisan projection of power and a message
> to anyone with Trump's audacity to threaten the status quo. That same State
> apparatus that has been so absent in the face of blatant illegalities and
> improprieties committed by top Democrats has been ruthless in its pursuit of
> those on the other side of the aisle, as Michael Flynn tragically learned the
> hard way.
>
> Only someone steeped in naivete, or hyper-partisan denial, could believe that
> the raid on the Trumps' home was not at its core a political action. Some 30
> federal agents spent a full day on the Mar-a-Lago grounds going through every
> inch of the property. They even rifled through the former First Lady's
> wardrobe closets while forcing Trump's lawyers to stand out in the scorching
> Florida sun as the search went underway.
>
> While the contents of the search warrant remain unknown, the pretext of
> finding archive documents was reportedly used to enter the house of the party
> in power's most dangerous and outspoken opponent in order to find something,
> anything, damning enough to prevent his run for office against a failed
> president in 2024. And they may find something accusatory... as they would
> most likely find in any of our homes as well. Why? Because the legal statutes
> have become so gargantuan that, as civil liberties attorney Harvey
> Silverglate has pointed out, every day the average American commits three
> felonies without even realizing it.

On 8/12/2022 12:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>
>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>> a revolution for again?"
>>
>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>
>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>
>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>
>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>
>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>
> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?

Put in English: have you noticed that guys who adhere to facts use the
right terms for things? And gutless right wing eunuchs run screaming
instead?

Agree, 100%

On 8/12/2022 12:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>
>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>> a revolution for again?"
>>
>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>
>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>
>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>
>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>
>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>
> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>
> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
> the needs of the Agenda.

Ooh, I didn't see this part. You're lying btw.

https://www.fletc.gov/audio/execution-search-warrant-i-mp3

Jenna: Title 18 of the United States Code section 3105 says that Federal
Agents can execute warrants. State and Local officers can help the feds,
even if the state and local are working outside their jurisdiction to do
that, as long as the Federal Agent remains in charge of the execution of
the search.

Why the fuck are they talking about a search with a search warrant?
Didn't they consult you first?

Your horseshit is really getting deep now.

On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>
>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>> a revolution for again?"
>>
>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>
>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>
>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>
>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>
>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>
> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>
> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
> the needs of the Agenda.
>
> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.

I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.

>> to retrieve the classified documents.
>
> The president is the supreme classification authority in the U.S.
> government. He can literally classify or declassify anything on his own
> volition, literally just by saying so. No paperwork is even required. Trump
> could claim he declassified all the documents before he left office and it
> would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
> did not-- a near impossible hurdle to clear.

Oops...

"Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/trump-fbi-raid-classified-nuclear-documents/671119/

>> ...

On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss
>>> - and
>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of
>>> Washington
>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which
>>> small
>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of
>>> the
>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that
>>> come
>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks
>>> Pritchard
>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>
>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of
>>> what
>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them.
>>> Someone
>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to
>>> look upon
>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United
>>> States'
>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but
>>> think
>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation
>>> have
>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement
>>> arm of a
>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the
>>> horror
>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen
>>> act of
>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of,
>>> "And we
>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly
>>> what we had
>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>
>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat
>>> Party,
>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been
>>> dutifully
>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters
>>> that "no
>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other
>>> Democrats are
>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it
>>> deserves.
>>>
>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo,
>>> certainly no
>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a
>>> search
>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political
>>> tactic and
>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>
>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for
>>> classified
>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all
>>> this, and
>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to
>>> serve a
>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>
>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this
>>> writing (and
>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the
>>> shaken tree
>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid.
>>> Neither of
>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>
>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as
>>> one State
>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>
>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>
>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to
>> serve
>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>
>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality,
>> would
>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>
> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>
>
>>> to retrieve the classified documents.
>>
>> The president is the supreme classification authority in the U.S.
>> government. He can literally classify or declassify anything on his own
>> volition, literally just by saying so. No paperwork is even required.
>> Trump
>> could claim he declassified all the documents before he left office
>> and it
>> would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
>> that he
>> did not-- a near impossible hurdle to clear.
>
> Oops...
>
>     "Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets"
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/trump-fbi-raid-classified-nuclear-documents/671119/

He committed espionage. It's hard to say what charges will be filed,
but I think will be charges.

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>
>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>
>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>>
>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>
>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>
>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>
>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>
>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>
>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>
>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>
> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.

You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that any of this is about
you personally.

And exactly how does my response to the claims made by Biden's spokeshole
and no small number of media talking heads constitute a strawman?

>>> to retrieve the classified documents.
>>
>> The president is the supreme classification authority in the U.S.
>> government. He can literally classify or declassify anything on his own
>> volition, literally just by saying so. No paperwork is even required. Trump
>> could claim he declassified all the documents before he left office and it
>> would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
>> did not-- a near impossible hurdle to clear.
>
> Oops..
>
> "Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets"

LOL! Well, if he took nuclear secrets, then all bets are off, but I'm
betting that's not what these documents were about or they wouldn't have
waited TWO DAMN YEARS to retrieve them.

And if they do contain nuclear secrets and they did wait two years to get
them back, then Biden is just as guilty as Trump with regard to damaging
national security.

> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/trump-fbi-raid-classified-nuclear-documents/671119/

On 8/12/2022 4:21 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his
>>>> boss - and
>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of
>>>> Washington
>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to
>>>> which small
>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound
>>>> of the
>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that
>>>> come
>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks
>>>> Pritchard
>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration
>>>> of what
>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose
>>>> them. Someone
>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to
>>>> look upon
>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United
>>>> States'
>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but
>>>> think
>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation
>>>> have
>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement
>>>> arm of a
>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine
>>>> the horror
>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen
>>>> act of
>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of,
>>>> "And we
>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly
>>>> what we had
>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>
>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat
>>>> Party,
>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been
>>>> dutifully
>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters
>>>> that "no
>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other
>>>> Democrats are
>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it
>>>> deserves.
>>>>
>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo,
>>>> certainly no
>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a
>>>> search
>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political
>>>> tactic and
>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be
>>>> the
>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>
>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for
>>>> classified
>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to
>>>> the
>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all
>>>> this, and
>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to
>>>> serve a
>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>
>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this
>>>> writing (and
>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the
>>>> shaken tree
>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid.
>>>> Neither of
>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in
>>>> what
>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>
>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as
>>>> one State
>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>
>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>
>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids
>>> are
>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge,
>>> but
>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to
>>> serve
>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>
>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole
>>> say it
>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality,
>>> would
>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>
>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>>
>>
>>>> to retrieve the classified documents.
>>>
>>> The president is the supreme classification authority in the U.S.
>>> government. He can literally classify or declassify anything on his own
>>> volition, literally just by saying so. No paperwork is even required.
>>> Trump
>>> could claim he declassified all the documents before he left office
>>> and it
>>> would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
>>> that he
>>> did not-- a near impossible hurdle to clear.
>>
>> Oops...
>>
>>      "Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets"
>>
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/trump-fbi-raid-classified-nuclear-documents/671119/
>
> He committed espionage.  It's hard to say what charges will be filed,
> but I think will be charges.

I figure anyone but a President would be under armed guard right now...

On 8/12/2022 4:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>
>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>>>
>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>
>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>
>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>
>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>
>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>
>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>
>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>
>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>
> You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that any of this is about
> you personally.
>
> And exactly how does my response to the claims made by Biden's spokeshole
> and no small number of media talking heads constitute a strawman?
>
>>>> to retrieve the classified documents.
>>>
>>> The president is the supreme classification authority in the U.S.
>>> government. He can literally classify or declassify anything on his own
>>> volition, literally just by saying so. No paperwork is even required. Trump
>>> could claim he declassified all the documents before he left office and it
>>> would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
>>> did not-- a near impossible hurdle to clear.
>>
>> Oops..
>>
>> "Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets"
>
> LOL! Well, if he took nuclear secrets, then all bets are off, but I'm
> betting

You're betting? You don't have a fucking identity anonyshit.

On 8/12/2022 4:39 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/12/2022 4:21 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his
>>>>> boss - and
>>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of
>>>>> Washington
>>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to
>>>>> which small
>>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound
>>>>> of the
>>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers
>>>>> that come
>>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks
>>>>> Pritchard
>>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his
>>>>> threatened
>>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration
>>>>> of what
>>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose
>>>>> them. Someone
>>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to
>>>>> look upon
>>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the
>>>>> United States'
>>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but
>>>>> think
>>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this
>>>>> nation have
>>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement
>>>>> arm of a
>>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine
>>>>> the horror
>>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a
>>>>> brazen act of
>>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of,
>>>>> "And we
>>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly
>>>>> what we had
>>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat
>>>>> Party,
>>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been
>>>>> dutifully
>>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters
>>>>> that "no
>>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other
>>>>> Democrats are
>>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it
>>>>> deserves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo,
>>>>> certainly no
>>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than
>>>>> a search
>>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political
>>>>> tactic and
>>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to
>>>>> be the
>>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>>
>>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for
>>>>> classified
>>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over
>>>>> to the
>>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all
>>>>> this, and
>>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice,
>>>>> to serve a
>>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>>
>>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this
>>>>> writing (and
>>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the
>>>>> shaken tree
>>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid.
>>>>> Neither of
>>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in
>>>>> what
>>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>>
>>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as
>>>>> one State
>>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>>
>>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection"
>>>> are
>>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>>
>>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All
>>>> raids are
>>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a
>>>> badge, but
>>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again
>>>> to serve
>>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole
>>>> say it
>>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in
>>>> reality, would
>>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>>
>>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> to retrieve the classified documents.
>>>>
>>>> The president is the supreme classification authority in the U.S.
>>>> government. He can literally classify or declassify anything on his own
>>>> volition, literally just by saying so. No paperwork is even
>>>> required. Trump
>>>> could claim he declassified all the documents before he left office
>>>> and it
>>>> would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
>>>> that he
>>>> did not-- a near impossible hurdle to clear.
>>>
>>> Oops...
>>>
>>>      "Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets"
>>>
>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/trump-fbi-raid-classified-nuclear-documents/671119/
>>
>>
>> He committed espionage.  It's hard to say what charges will be filed,
>> but I think will be charges.
>
> I figure anyone but a President would be under armed guard right now...
>

I can't wait to see him in an ankle bracelet. If they have on that fat.

On 8/12/2022 5:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>
>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>>>
>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>
>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>
>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>
>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>
>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>
>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>
>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>
>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>
> You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that any of this is about
> you personally.
>
> And exactly how does my response to the claims made by Biden's spokeshole
> and no small number of media talking heads constitute a strawman?

You're claiming a coordinated retreat from candid language. I think
you're grasping at straws to distract from a serious infraction. As an
evidentiary sample of one, I offer my personal indifference to the
terminology when compared to the mere fact of the FBI's incursion.

>>>> to retrieve the classified documents.
>>>
>>> The president is the supreme classification authority in the U.S.
>>> government. He can literally classify or declassify anything on his own
>>> volition, literally just by saying so. No paperwork is even required. Trump
>>> could claim he declassified all the documents before he left office and it
>>> would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
>>> did not-- a near impossible hurdle to clear.
>>
>> Oops..
>>
>> "Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets"
>
> LOL! Well, if he took nuclear secrets, then all bets are off, but I'm
> betting that's not what these documents were about or they wouldn't have
> waited TWO DAMN YEARS to retrieve them.
>
> And if they do contain nuclear secrets and they did wait two years to get
> them back, then Biden is just as guilty as Trump with regard to damaging
> national security.

And by 'Biden', I assume you include Joe, Hunter, and Hunter's laptop...

>> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/trump-fbi-raid-classified-nuclear-documents/671119/

How about if there was merely good reason to suspect he took nuclear
documents that'd, say, be of considerable interest to the Saudis? As I
said, any lower ranked politician would be under lock and key right now.

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 8/12/2022 5:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>>
>>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>>
>>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>>
>>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>>
>>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>>
>>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
>>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
>>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
>>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
>>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
>>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>>
>>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>>
>> You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that any of this is about
>> you personally.
>>
>> And exactly how does my response to the claims made by Biden's spokeshole
>> and no small number of media talking heads constitute a strawman?
>
> You're claiming a coordinated retreat from candid language.

Well, that's what the Left is famous for:

It's not a man.
It's not a baby.
It's not a recession.
It's not a raid.
It's not inflation.

The gaslighting has become brazen and unapologetic. Even so, that's not
what a strawman is.

> I think
> you're grasping at straws to distract from a serious infraction. As an
> evidentiary sample of one, I offer my personal indifference to the
> terminology when compared to the mere fact of the FBI's incursion.

Which is more than balanced by evidentiary samples of many, from the White
House podium to various columnists and media talking heads, who have gotten
really snippy about anyone using the word 'raid' in this context.

>>>>> to retrieve the classified documents.
>>>>
>>>> The president is the supreme classification authority in the U.S.
>>>> government. He can literally classify or declassify anything on his own
>>>> volition, literally just by saying so. No paperwork is even required. Trump
>>>> could claim he declassified all the documents before he left office and it
>>>> would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
>>>> did not-- a near impossible hurdle to clear.
>>>
>>> Oops..
>>>
>>> "Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets"
>>
>> LOL! Well, if he took nuclear secrets, then all bets are off, but I'm
>> betting that's not what these documents were about or they wouldn't have
>> waited TWO DAMN YEARS to retrieve them.
>>
>> And if they do contain nuclear secrets and they did wait two years to get
>> them back, then Biden is just as guilty as Trump with regard to damaging
>> national security.
>
> And by 'Biden', I assume you include Joe, Hunter, and Hunter's laptop...

You can assume whatever you like but only you will bear the consequences
when those assumptions end up beclowning you.

>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/trump-fbi-raid-classified-nuclear-documents/671119/
>
> How about if there was merely good reason to suspect he took nuclear
> documents that'd, say, be of considerable interest to the Saudis?

Then waiting two years to get them back would make Biden grossly and
criminally negligent with regard to national security and he and Trump
should be sharing adjoining prison cells.

> As I said, any lower ranked politician would be under lock and key right now.

Trump has no rank. He's a private citizen.

On 8/12/2022 5:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 8/12/2022 5:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>>>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>>>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>>>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>>>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>>>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>>>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>>>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>>>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>>>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>>>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>>>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>>>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>>>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>>>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>>>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>>>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>>>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>>>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>>>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>>>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>>>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>>>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>>>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>>>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>>>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>>>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>>>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>>>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>>>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>>>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>>>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>>>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>>>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>>>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>>>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
>>>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
>>>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
>>>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
>>>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
>>>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>>>
>>>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>>>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>>>
>>> You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that any of this is about
>>> you personally.
>>>
>>> And exactly how does my response to the claims made by Biden's spokeshole
>>> and no small number of media talking heads constitute a strawman?
>>
>> You're claiming a coordinated retreat from candid language.
>
> Well, that's what the Left is famous for:
>
> It's not a man.
> It's not a baby.
> It's not a recession.
> It's not a raid.
> It's not inflation.
>
> The gaslighting has become brazen and unapologetic. Even so, that's not
> what a strawman is.
>
>> I think
>> you're grasping at straws to distract from a serious infraction. As an
>> evidentiary sample of one, I offer my personal indifference to the
>> terminology when compared to the mere fact of the FBI's incursion.
>
> Which is more than balanced by evidentiary samples of many, from the White
> House podium to various columnists and media talking heads, who have gotten
> really snippy about anyone using the word 'raid' in this context.
>
>>>>>> to retrieve the classified documents.
>>>>>
>>>>> The president is the supreme classification authority in the U.S.
>>>>> government. He can literally classify or declassify anything on his own
>>>>> volition, literally just by saying so. No paperwork is even required. Trump
>>>>> could claim he declassified all the documents before he left office and it
>>>>> would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
>>>>> did not-- a near impossible hurdle to clear.
>>>>
>>>> Oops..
>>>>
>>>> "Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets"
>>>
>>> LOL! Well, if he took nuclear secrets, then all bets are off, but I'm
>>> betting that's not what these documents were about or they wouldn't have
>>> waited TWO DAMN YEARS to retrieve them.
>>>
>>> And if they do contain nuclear secrets and they did wait two years to get
>>> them back, then Biden is just as guilty as Trump with regard to damaging
>>> national security.
>>
>> And by 'Biden', I assume you include Joe, Hunter, and Hunter's laptop...
>
> You can assume whatever you like but only you will bear the consequences
> when those assumptions end up beclowning you.
>
>>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/trump-fbi-raid-classified-nuclear-documents/671119/
>>
>> How about if there was merely good reason to suspect he took nuclear
>> documents that'd, say, be of considerable interest to the Saudis?
>
> Then waiting two years to get them back would make Biden grossly and
> criminally negligent with regard to national security and he and Trump
> should be sharing adjoining prison cells.

On 8/12/2022 6:00 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/12/2022 5:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his
>>>>> boss - and
>>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of
>>>>> Washington
>>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to
>>>>> which small
>>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound
>>>>> of the
>>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers
>>>>> that come
>>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks
>>>>> Pritchard
>>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his
>>>>> threatened
>>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration
>>>>> of what
>>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose
>>>>> them. Someone
>>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to
>>>>> look upon
>>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the
>>>>> United States'
>>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but
>>>>> think
>>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this
>>>>> nation have
>>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement
>>>>> arm of a
>>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine
>>>>> the horror
>>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a
>>>>> brazen act of
>>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of,
>>>>> "And we
>>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly
>>>>> what we had
>>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat
>>>>> Party,
>>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been
>>>>> dutifully
>>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters
>>>>> that "no
>>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other
>>>>> Democrats are
>>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it
>>>>> deserves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo,
>>>>> certainly no
>>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than
>>>>> a search
>>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political
>>>>> tactic and
>>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to
>>>>> be the
>>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>>
>>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for
>>>>> classified
>>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over
>>>>> to the
>>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all
>>>>> this, and
>>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice,
>>>>> to serve a
>>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>>
>>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this
>>>>> writing (and
>>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the
>>>>> shaken tree
>>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid.
>>>>> Neither of
>>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in
>>>>> what
>>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>>
>>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as
>>>>> one State
>>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>>
>>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection"
>>>> are
>>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>>
>>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All
>>>> raids are
>>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a
>>>> badge, but
>>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again
>>>> to serve
>>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole
>>>> say it
>>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in
>>>> reality, would
>>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>>
>>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>>
>> You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that any of this is about
>> you personally.
>>
>> And exactly how does my response to the claims made by Biden's spokeshole
>> and no small number of media talking heads constitute a strawman?
>
> You're claiming a coordinated retreat from candid language.  I think
> you're grasping at straws to distract from a serious infraction.  As an
> evidentiary sample of one, I offer my personal indifference to the
> terminology when compared to the mere fact of the FBI's incursion.
>
>
>>>>> to retrieve the classified documents.
>>>>
>>>> The president is the supreme classification authority in the U.S.
>>>> government. He can literally classify or declassify anything on his own
>>>> volition, literally just by saying so. No paperwork is even
>>>> required. Trump
>>>> could claim he declassified all the documents before he left office
>>>> and it
>>>> would be the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
>>>> that he
>>>> did not-- a near impossible hurdle to clear.
>>>
>>> Oops..
>>>
>>> "Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets"
>>
>> LOL! Well, if he took nuclear secrets, then all bets are off, but I'm
>> betting that's not what these documents were about or they wouldn't have
>> waited TWO DAMN YEARS to retrieve them.
>>
>> And if they do contain nuclear secrets and they did wait two years to get
>> them back, then Biden is just as guilty as Trump with regard to damaging
>> national security.
>
> And by 'Biden', I assume you include Joe, Hunter, and Hunter's laptop...

And Jill's Doctorate.

On 8/12/2022 7:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 8/12/2022 5:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>>>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>>>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>>>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>>>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>>>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>>>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>>>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>>>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>>>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>>>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>>>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>>>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>>>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>>>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>>>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>>>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>>>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>>>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>>>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>>>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>>>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>>>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>>>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>>>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>>>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>>>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>>>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>>>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>>>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>>>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>>>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>>>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>>>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>>>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>>>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
>>>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
>>>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
>>>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
>>>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
>>>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>>>
>>>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>>>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>>>
>>> You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that any of this is about
>>> you personally.
>>>
>>> And exactly how does my response to the claims made by Biden's spokeshole
>>> and no small number of media talking heads constitute a strawman?
>>
>> You're claiming a coordinated retreat from candid language.
>
> Well, that's what the Left is famous for:
>
> It's not a man.
> It's not a baby.
> It's not a recession.
> It's not a raid.
> It's not inflation.
>
> The gaslighting has become brazen and unapologetic. Even so, that's not
> what a strawman is.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"It's not an insurrection."
"Trump isn't a criminal."
"What espionage?"

Pure horseshit and hypocrisy.

The gasbagging has become brazen and unapologetic.

Witch hunt! Russia! Russia! Russia!

I'm sure the Oath Keepers are cool with it though.

On 8/12/2022 7:20 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 August 2022 at 15:24:28 UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3189832161333337&set=a.1665736307076271
>
> Was that before the FBI became a tool of the DNC?

You mean under Trump appointee Christopher Wray? Cut the fucking
bullshit you simpering eunuch. You're confused by the time when Trump
stupidly conferred with Comey and asked him to "kiss the ring." You
represent a pile of horseshit, grow a fucking spine and a pair of
testicles and admit it.

On 8/12/2022 8:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 8/12/2022 5:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>>>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>>>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>>>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>>>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>>>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>>>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>>>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>>>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>>>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>>>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>>>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>>>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>>>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>>>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>>>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>>>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>>>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>>>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>>>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>>>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>>>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>>>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>>>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>>>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>>>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>>>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>>>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>>>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>>>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>>>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>>>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>>>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>>>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>>>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>>>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
>>>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
>>>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
>>>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
>>>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
>>>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>>>
>>>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>>>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>>>
>>> You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that any of this is about
>>> you personally.
>>>
>>> And exactly how does my response to the claims made by Biden's spokeshole
>>> and no small number of media talking heads constitute a strawman?
>>
>> You're claiming a coordinated retreat from candid language.
>
> Well, that's what the Left is famous for:
>
> It's not a man.
> It's not a baby.
> It's not a recession.
> It's not a raid.
> It's not inflation.
>
> The gaslighting has become brazen and unapologetic. Even so, that's not
> what a strawman is.
> ...

So, what little substance it has is easily ridiculed, pretending thus to
discredit a much more significant underlying claim, but...

....It's not a strawman.

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 8/12/2022 8:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2022 5:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>>>>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>>>>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>>>>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>>>>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>>>>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>>>>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>>>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>>>>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>>>>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>>>>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>>>>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>>>>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>>>>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>>>>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>>>>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>>>>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>>>>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>>>>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>>>>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>>>>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>>>>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>>>>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>>>>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>>>>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>>>>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>>>>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>>>>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>>>>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>>>>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>>>>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>>>>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>>>>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>>>>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>>>>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>>>>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>>>>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
>>>>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>>>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
>>>>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
>>>>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
>>>>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>>>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>>>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
>>>>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>>>>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that any of this is about
>>>> you personally.
>>>>
>>>> And exactly how does my response to the claims made by Biden's spokeshole
>>>> and no small number of media talking heads constitute a strawman?
>>>
>>> You're claiming a coordinated retreat from candid language.
>>
>> Well, that's what the Left is famous for:
>>
>> It's not a man.
>> It's not a baby.
>> It's not a recession.
>> It's not a raid.
>> It's not inflation.
>>
>> The gaslighting has become brazen and unapologetic. Even so, that's not
>> what a strawman is.
>> ...
> So, what little substance it has is easily ridiculed, pretending thus to
> discredit a much more significant underlying claim, but...
>
> ...It's not a strawman.

If you want to continue to think of it as a strawman, fine, but if it is,
it's one created by all the Democrats and their media enablers who are
harping on this ridiculous distinction in the first place, not those who
are calling them idiots for doing it.

On 8/13/2022 10:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 8/12/2022 8:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2022 5:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>>>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>>>>>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>>>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>>>>>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>>>>>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>>>>>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>>>>>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>>>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>>>>>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>>>>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>>>>>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>>>>>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>>>>>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>>>>>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>>>>>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>>>>>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>>>>>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>>>>>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>>>>>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>>>>>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>>>>>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>>>>>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>>>>>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>>>>>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>>>>>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>>>>>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>>>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>>>>>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>>>>>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>>>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>>>>>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>>>>>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>>>>>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>>>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>>>>>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>>>>>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>>>>>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>>>>>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>>>>>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>>>>>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>>>>>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>>>>>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
>>>>>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>>>>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
>>>>>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
>>>>>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
>>>>>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>>>>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>>>>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
>>>>>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>>>>>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that any of this is about
>>>>> you personally.
>>>>>
>>>>> And exactly how does my response to the claims made by Biden's spokeshole
>>>>> and no small number of media talking heads constitute a strawman?
>>>>
>>>> You're claiming a coordinated retreat from candid language.
>>>
>>> Well, that's what the Left is famous for:
>>>
>>> It's not a man.
>>> It's not a baby.
>>> It's not a recession.
>>> It's not a raid.
>>> It's not inflation.
>>>
>>> The gaslighting has become brazen and unapologetic. Even so, that's not
>>> what a strawman is.
>>> ...
>> So, what little substance it has is easily ridiculed, pretending thus to
>> discredit a much more significant underlying claim, but...
>>
>> ...It's not a strawman.
>
> If you want to continue to think of it as a strawman, fine, but if it is,
> it's one created by all the Democrats and their media enablers who are
> harping on this ridiculous distinction in the first place, not those who
> are calling them idiots for doing it.

Well horseshitted.

On 8/13/2022 11:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 8/12/2022 8:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2022 5:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/12/2022 1:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In the 1987 film, "No Way Out," the character Scott Pritchard, general
>>>>>>>> counsel to the Secretary of Defense, is desperate to protect his boss - and
>>>>>>>> his meal ticket - by covering up the secretary's act of murdering his
>>>>>>>> mistress. The film presents its audience with a tangled web of Washington
>>>>>>>> intrigue, and even 35 years ago, it brought home the lengths to which small
>>>>>>>> men with large ambitions, having burrowed within the termite mound of the
>>>>>>>> deep state, will go to protect their own careers and the powers that come
>>>>>>>> only to those in positions of unelected authority in a bloated federal
>>>>>>>> bureaucracy. "You have no idea what men of power can do!," shrieks Pritchard
>>>>>>>> at one point in the film, as his desperation to preserve his threatened
>>>>>>>> career reveals the depths of his megalomania.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, the American people were given an ominous demonstration of what
>>>>>>>> men of power can, and indeed will, do to crush those who oppose them. Someone
>>>>>>>> watching the unfolding events need not be a member of team MAGA to look upon
>>>>>>>> the FBI raid of the duly-elected 45th former president of the United States'
>>>>>>>> Mar-a-Lago estate with the deepest of concerns. One cannot help but think
>>>>>>>> that the very agencies set up to protect the citizens of this nation have
>>>>>>>> become hopelessly politicized and are morphing into the enforcement arm of a
>>>>>>>> borderline thugocracy that has taken over D.C. I can only imagine the horror
>>>>>>>> with which the Founding Fathers would have looked upon such a brazen act of
>>>>>>>> federal power projection. I think it might be along the lines of, "And we
>>>>>>>> thought the Redcoats were bad? Will someone explain to me exactly what we had
>>>>>>>> a revolution for again?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although the most rank and shameless partisans within the Democrat Party,
>>>>>>>> along with their trained parrots in much of the media, have been dutifully
>>>>>>>> mouthing the blast emailed talking point from the DNC headquarters that "no
>>>>>>>> one is above the law" (more on that in a moment), many other Democrats are
>>>>>>>> looking at this FBI action with the proper level of disquiet it deserves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of all people, former Democratic New York governor Andrew Cuomo, certainly no
>>>>>>>> fan of Trump to say the least, tweeted: "[Department of Justice] must
>>>>>>>> immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search
>>>>>>>> for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and
>>>>>>>> undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6
>>>>>>>> investigations." Even some in the media are showing themselves to be the
>>>>>>>> proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When asked if the pretext for the FBI raid - to wit: a search for classified
>>>>>>>> documents in Trump's possession that should have been turned over to the
>>>>>>>> National Archives - is enough to warrant such a SWAT tactic, CNN legal
>>>>>>>> analyst Paul Callan responded: "No, it's not enough to warrant all this, and
>>>>>>>> this is a daring and dangerous move by the Department of Justice, to serve a
>>>>>>>> warrant on a former president and raid his personal residence."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Daring, no. Dangerous, yes. There really seems to be, as of this writing (and
>>>>>>>> yours truly waited a day or two to see what fruit fell from the shaken tree
>>>>>>>> first), only two possible reasons for this unprecedented raid. Neither of
>>>>>>>> which bring any comfort to lovers of civil liberties who believe in what
>>>>>>>> seems to be a dying American Republic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First is that this was really just "executing a search warrant" (as one State
>>>>>>>> lacky in the media tried to frame it)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you noticed that the people who called a riot an "insurrection" are
>>>>>>> suddenly super-sensitive about anyone calling a raid a raid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Raid" is just the common parlance for executing a warrant. All raids are
>>>>>>> accompanied by search warrants. Every warrant I ever served was a raid.
>>>>>>> It's what we called it for the entire quarter century I wore a badge, but
>>>>>>> now Democrats apparently need to change the English language again to serve
>>>>>>> the needs of the Agenda.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the FBI had a warrant here, the media and Biden's spokeshole say it
>>>>>>> wasn't a raid. That begs the question, so what *is* a raid according to
>>>>>>> them? They apparently believe a raid is when the cops show up and force
>>>>>>> their way into people's homes *without* a warrant, which, in reality, would
>>>>>>> be nothing but an illegal home invasion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I might buy this straw man had I ever the slightest compunction about
>>>>>> calling it a 'raid', a 'scavenger hunt', or anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be under the ridiculous impression that any of this is about
>>>>> you personally.
>>>>>
>>>>> And exactly how does my response to the claims made by Biden's spokeshole
>>>>> and no small number of media talking heads constitute a strawman?
>>>>
>>>> You're claiming a coordinated retreat from candid language.
>>>
>>> Well, that's what the Left is famous for:
>>>
>>> It's not a man.
>>> It's not a baby.
>>> It's not a recession.
>>> It's not a raid.
>>> It's not inflation.
>>>
>>> The gaslighting has become brazen and unapologetic. Even so, that's not
>>> what a strawman is.
>>> ...
>> So, what little substance it has is easily ridiculed, pretending thus to
>> discredit a much more significant underlying claim, but...
>>
>> ...It's not a strawman.
>
> If you want to continue to think of it as a strawman, fine, but if it is,
> it's one created by all the Democrats and their media enablers who are
> harping on this ridiculous distinction in the first place, not those who
> are calling them idiots for doing it.

I'll take your word for it, as I have only the experience of Bill Maher
and eavesdropped cable-news consistently referring to the "Mar-A-Lago
raid". Word-games from a press secretary don't really register on me.