All_Pro_Bills

The crickets you're hearing are coming from the DOJ. Its been 3 weeks and they've done jack. They redacted almost the entire affidavit. If there was some smoking gun in there it would have been disclosed in yellow highlighter. But nothing like that. As time passes it will become obvious this was simply a political hit job executed by a desperate and failing administration. As for classified and secret documents, cry me a river. If it was you or me then no question, but no charges against a former President that had possession of documents while still in office and was cooperating with the archivist to process them per required procedures is going to happen. Like the 2017 Cleveland Browns the 2022 Washington Brandons are laying another big fact goose egg to add to their O-fer record. My guess is they called the Hail Mary play looking for something big a "credible source" suggested was out lying around the house and they failed to find it. Nobody has to make up anything. These fools will hang themselves. But for now its damage control time. That's all I've got to say for now. As I await the crying and shrieking from the weaklings when they realize "Satan" has once against escaped punishment.

Frankly, I expect legal objections will be filling challenging the President's authority to "forgive" any of this debt. Sure you can issue any executive order he fancies but can he modify contracts and agreements governed by legislation? The argument will be this requires legislative action. It should be interesting. I don't think the Federal government "holds" the note on these debts. On the Federal governments accounting books and accounts. It could be large banks or some entity like Sallie Mae. The Fed provide "guarantees" that would kick in if there was a default to pay these institutions and banks. I don't know the specifics here, but I expect it would require the discharge of the debt through something like a bankruptcy filing. What Biden is doing is paying off $10K or $20K of loan balances from people that are judged to be solvent or credit worthy. So what's going to happen here? If I hold a student debt of $100K and Biden is forgiving $10K I'd have to be nuts to pay off the other $90K. I'll wait until they forgive the rest. Thanks Joe.

The term moral hazard comes to mind here. People are asking fundamental and legitimate questions. What about me? What about my debts? And why should I subsidize people with degrees from places like Harvard and Yale? Why aren't these universities with multiple billion dollar endowments pitching in a few pennies for paying off loans students took out for the sometimes worthless and high priced degrees these places are peddling? Other questions about personal responsibility. All legitimate questions. And just why is student debt more worthy of forgiveness than other types of debt? What about home owners that are now underwater with their home loans? Owing more than the home is now worth, shouldn't they be forgiven a portion of their debt? Or car loan borrowers that are behind in their payments. Shouldn't people that depend on their car to get them to and from work or school or transporting the kids get a break? What about consumer credit card debt? Shouldn't consumers strapped with big balances and monthly payments at onerous rates above 20% have a portion of their debt forgiven? And while we're at it, why hasn't a presumed "progressive" majority proposed or passed legislation to cap obscene interest rate charges? Joe has created more trouble than its worth here. Because the freebie Genie's out of the bottle and there's no putting it back. He'll end up placating a small minority of his base but pissing off and alienating almost everyone else. Politically stupid right now, and economically a disaster. At this point I'm wondering why any of us should have to service any loans or payments of any kind? I mean, we "deserve" nice things too, right? Let the government and the taxpayers take care of it. Time to enjoy the good life for everybody!

Facts are of little consequence to TDS victims. They believe all the crap and propaganda shoveled and handed out by approved mouthpieces. Even when it later proves to be false. They would have made great citizens during the Soviet era. Another flaw is their tendency to declare victory at halftime.

If people in California are so stupid that they elect officials that issue continuous proclamations and regulations and pass laws banning all kinds of things and imposing one restriction or another on their choices and freedoms its their business. What will happen is people and business will migrate to other "free enterprise" friendly jurisdictions and states. And what's left of it, well I wish them good luck. While I've got nothing against the fundamental idea of electrifying the US vehicle fleet I think the idea as currently presented is a fantasy based on wishful thinking. I don't see "the plan" for producing all the additional carbon free electricity that will be required to charge all those vehicles. For now its mostly fossil fuel consuming power plants which begs the question what's the point if all you're doing is moving the CO2 production from one step in the process to another while incurring all kinds of additional costs and inefficiencies? You can issue all the edicts you want but there's got to be some associated actions and I just don't think these geniuses running policy have any credible plan to put in place the physical infrastructure to support it all. Why its not obvious to more people I don't understand.

My concern isn't so much defending or explaining what Trump did or didn't do. And I have no idea how past presidents have handled this situation and how they were treated. I suspect there aren't a lot of posters here that have paid attention to the disposition of presidential records prior to this time around. My problem is most government documents and information designated as "secret" are classified in that way to withhold the truth about lots of events and activities from the American public. To avoid exposing the real actions taken by government that violate or contradict the official line. To assist in the continuous process of shoveling BS and covering us with it. Not information kept under wraps from all kinds of nefarious adversaries and enemies that would harm or injure Americans and American interests if they somehow got their grubby hands on the secret or confidential information. That aspect of it all is part of the mystique of the "national security" issue mantra. And when it's invoked the implication is it demands total and unwavering obedience to the excuse. Most times it's a lie

What is unexplained is if these documents contain current "secret" and "confidential" information then why did the government fail to act with any sense of urgency? As we're all being led to believe these are important secrets, they waited 20 months to execute a search and retrieval operation. Agent executed subpoenas as recently as June and had access to the documents and removed a number of items and boxes at that time. And by all accounts the President's legal team was cooperating. What suddenly changed the tone of the engagement? Yet an answer to this simple and basic answer question is elusive. Its neither detailed in the affidavit or the warrant or any statements made by DOJ or the FBI. In short there's no talk on the motive of the former President to hold these documents or the motive of the DOJ/FBI to change their previous casual attitude to one of urgency. Nothing to this point has convinced me to alter my initial suspicion that agents executed a warrant in search of something else. Using the boxes of documents as pretext for probable cause to request a broadly scoped warrant. To seize and secure anything related to the entire term of the presidency found anywhere at the residence. It also seems an unlikely coincident that the judge that signed off on the search was previously assigned to the Trump civil case against Clinton and then recused himself later after the case began only to show up here again here. Given the contentious nature of the political environment I find it difficult to believe the events have no connection or the assignments of two critical cases to a specific magistrate were some game of chance random thing.

With a sense of irony, I'd like to point out many posters exhibiting the same authoritarian tendencies and a lack of empathy that is typically assigned to "MAGA" people.

Your first sentence was good. After that it was all baseless speculation and wild imagination. I've mentioned the Presidential Records Act a few times. I recommend reading it.

What gives with Comedy Central. Every time I'm channel surfing there's always a commercial on. Maybe they can explore the hilarious concept that if I read a secret document, I know the secret and therefore no longer need the document so if we don't want ex-presidents spilling the beans then a mind-wipe is required.

Chef, if you're ever interested that kind of "outside the box" thinking can land you a pretty decent gig as a high paid government official someday.

What we learned from the released affidavit is the people at the DOJ have a large supply of black marker pens and they're not afraid to use them.

The same thing all previous Presidents were doing.

The smoking gun! Now lets play name that crime. Today's topic. Potential crimes that can be associated with the act of having your picture taken with a 33 year old woman. Fire up the engines on those Blackhawks and load up the SWAT teams!

I think a lot of people are just opposed to the government throwing pennies at anybody, public or private groups, individuals, corporations, etc. And they want nothing more than the government to get out of the income redistribution and social engineering racket. Especially those middle class and working citizens that for some odd and peculiar reason always seem to be on the "giving" end of the arrangement no matter who "gets".

So how does this work? The state licenses retailers to sell legal pot. But is it still illegal to grow your own? And its okay to smoke pot as long as its from an "authorized dealer". The use of convicted drug dealers makes sense because they already have a full understanding of the business process absent the need to track down and harass, or work over, anybody they fronted to or trusted to pay later.

Fauci testified that biological research at Wuhan funded by NIH that sought to enhance the ability of animal originated coronavirus to infect humans does not meet the definition of "gain of function" research. And its a mere coincidence that ground zero for the virus was located near the Wuhan research facility. And if you attack him you attack science. I am science, he proclaimed!

I've been to Binghamton a few times and if you also have, I think you'll agree there's not much going on there.

I think its called moral hazard. What I'm most curious about is under what statute or law does King Joe have the authority through executive order or royal edict to cancel or modify the terms and conditions of loans and other financial agreements that are governed under contract law between and among individuals and institutions? If its government money under what authorized budget line are the funds to be dispersed from or to? I won't be surprised to see lawsuits filed by taxpayer advocacy groups. Why can't he help us all out? Cancel home mortgage debt, cancel credit card debt, cancel personal debt. Or send us all a check for $10,000. If you're being true to the ideal, stop preaching about equality and start demonstrating it.

Maybe show a little more conviction to the cause and ban anything from the residence that white people invented? See how that works out. I expect about as well as what these idiots are doing already.

Fascism is a system that has no elections. Officials like Bolsonaro are nationalists. Nationalist can be elected if receiving enough votes in elections. Fascism is one form of totalitarian authority. Socialism and Communism are two other major types. The classic definitions of authoritarian regimes say left wing, right wing but I believe those distinctions are irrelevant. They're pretty much the same thing. They all share a common trait of organizing society and the economy under the control of the government. Under Fascism private corporate power is coordinated and driven by the government. Under socialism and communism corporate power is integrated into the government or only exists as State sponsored or controlled enterprises. Socialism and communism suggest their societies are "classless" but there are always ruling elite. There is little distinction between "The Party" and "The State". They all believe the State is the ultimate power. They all believe citizens exist for the purpose of serving The State. The all generally outlaw religion or beliefs in deities. This is because a belief in God implies the existence of a higher power then The State. Under the system there is no higher power than The State. Therefore, God cannot be allowed to exist or be recognized. The State is God. And The State is the ultimate arbiter of all things including life and death. I'm hard-press to believe nor do I see any evidence that Trump was attempting to impose such a system. I think anyone that believes that is stupid, brainwashed, or insane.

Not a lawyer but have done some research and have read opinions from various legal minds pro and con. From all this, I conclude the rules and processes established by The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, determine how these documents need to be handled and this Act supersedes any legal argument that can be made by invoking the Espionage Act against a former President. And as things move through the courts I expect the defense to pursue this argument and the DOJ will argue against it. I believe precedent is on the side of the defense. I believe the defense will cite clear and progressively cooperative discussions and interactions with the Archivist and the FBI as proof of compliance with requests and subpoenas, I believe the defense will charge the government actions were excessive, intrusive, intentionally and incorrectly non-specific, and unnecessary. I believe the defense will argue Garland's assertion that their was no other option to be a lie and motivated by politics and direction from the White House. I believe they will argue the AG has a clear conflict of interest and upon receiving orders and direction from the White House to execute the warrant and the search should have recused himself and by not doing this has biased any legal argument the government can make. I believe this direction from the White House is clearly established by released documents under FOIA. Given the warrant was issued citing violations of the Espionage Act the defense will argue that law is superseded and irrelevant to the case and and therefore the warrant and the search is illegal. And that whether or not some documents under the control of the former President were classified or secret is irrelevant. If the case reaches SCOTUS there's a good chance the court would agree with that argument. The act: Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records. Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records. Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President. Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records. Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing. Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA. Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office. Establishes a process by which the President may restrict and the public may obtain access to these records after the President leaves office; specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years. Codifies the process by which former and incumbent Presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege prior to public release of records by NARA (which had formerly been governed by Executive order 13489). Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489. Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts: any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account. (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.) Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records.

Not content to obsess over only one Trump, the personality anti-cult fantasizes about others. And soon, like Las Vegas is home to Elvis impersonators, Washington DC will be overrun by legions of Trump impersonators on every corner of the the city. Prompting calls for legislation to ban the violent practice. While I jest, the site of something like "DC Fest - 1001 Trumps" would be gut wrenching laughter as the mental weaklings cry and weep while speed dialing their therapists.

I'm going to tell you the part of the story you're missing, or ignoring. Let's say Papadopoulos did boast of that. And was his boast of and by itself a crime? And let's say it wasn't the Steele dossier. And lets say the Russians did have dirt on Clinton. What was the intent of the intelligence community and the FBI in investigating the Trump campaign? One, to identify and acquire the dirt on Clinton, assess it, and if credible, build a legal case to prosecute and convict her for crimes? Or two, to perform surveillance on the Trump campaign in order discredit the candidate, suppress and bury the dirt and evidence of Clinton's crimes in order to protect her? The answer is number two. Instead of facilitating the disclosure of dirt on Clinton's "crimes" the agencies decided the crime was any attempt to disclose the dirt. To harm Trump and to protect Clinton. That's how the establishment rolls. If you have evidence of any wrongdoing by one of its members you are the criminal if you try to disclose it.

That is... until these dweebs get audited.