Kemp Posted June 12, 2023 Author Posted June 12, 2023 6 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Joe Biden maintained control of records dating to his time on the senate, which ended in 2009. He became VP in 2008, which was 15+ years ago. 🤦🏼♂️ Apparently you didn't read the law. Big Surprise. Maybe bold lettering is something you can't read. And once again you were terrified to address what Trump did and changed the subject. Sometimes I feel sorry for you folks who can't offer up a defense of Trump. It must be difficult to always change the subject, but considering who you're defending, what other choice do you have? 6 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Ridiculous! So by the letter of the law then the President can’t have any papers. It is the Trump Team’s position that the government was INDEED given access to the documents. The documents were neither being hidden, moved around, or stolen. The PRA, as you quoted it, doesn’t say that the records have to be in a specific building. If it did there’d be armed guards at the White House searching everything before it left the property. Another who can't read or more likely unable to handle truth. If a former President or Vice President finds Presidential records among personal materials, he or she is expected to contact NARA in a timely manner to secure the transfer of those Presidential records to NARA. Try again.
Westside Posted June 12, 2023 Posted June 12, 2023 2 minutes ago, Kemp said: Apparently you didn't read the law. Big Surprise. Maybe bold lettering is something you can't read. And once again you were terrified to address what Trump did and changed the subject. Sometimes I feel sorry for you folks who can't offer up a defense of Trump. It must be difficult to always change the subject, but considering who you're defending, what other choice do you have? The law must be a living breathing document to you progressives the way you change it from person to person.
ChiGoose Posted June 12, 2023 Posted June 12, 2023 14 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Goose....that's what the national discussion is about. We get it. Everyone gets it. What, in many people's opinion, is a bridge too far, is indicting a former President over a stupid matter of government document retention. Especially when it's subsequently been discovered that virtually EVERYONE has had documents in their possession after leaving office. Obstruction of Justice is stupid? Stealing defense secrets is stupid?
Kemp Posted June 12, 2023 Author Posted June 12, 2023 1 minute ago, Westside said: The law must be a living breathing document to you progressives the way you change it from person to person. Again, another pinhead goes off on a tangent. You read the law (maybe). Understood it (doubtful), and were forced to change the subject. You folks are either terrified of reality or don't care, because you must defend your fuhrer. Were you with buddies holding Nazi flags in Florida or are they just your allies? 1
Westside Posted June 12, 2023 Posted June 12, 2023 Just now, Kemp said: Again, another pinhead goes off on a tangent. You read the law (maybe). Understood it (doubtful), and were forced to change the subject. You folks are either terrified of reality or don't care, because you must defend your fuhrer. Were you with buddies holding Nazi flags in Florida or are they just your allies? Says the guy who believes all the lefts bullshitt accusations. You wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped you in the face. 2 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted June 12, 2023 Posted June 12, 2023 25 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I worked for Barr's DOJ the first time around, under Bush 41. He was viewed as an honest broker, clearly a Republican (of course) who supported executive authority under the constitution, but not someone with any political ambition of his own (could a guy who looks and talks like him ever be elected anything in post-media saturation America?) or any particular axe to grind. When Trump brought him in after Sessions, that was still the general perception of Barr: boring, predictable, a straight shooter. No one's reputation survives intact after working for Trump. But let me try to explain the kind of law geek perception of how I see him now. Barr has always been consistent on one thing: a clear constitutional theory that Executive power must be asserted and protected. The strongest perspective on this is called the unitary executive theory: all of the Executive power is vested in the President; hence, all our post-FDR administrative state creations ultimately exist at the pleasure of the President, who has an inherent power to override administrative agency decisions and to replace administrative agency officers. Barr isn't the classic unitary executive theorist, but he was highly influenced by that concept when it came to the forefront under Reagan. So how does that explain his actions? How does it explain his seeming defense of Trump up until the election, and then his seeming abandonment of Trump afterwards? It's really not that hard to explain. Barr believes in protecting the authority of the Executive, of The Presidency, not necessarily of the human embodiment of that authority (President George H.W. Bush, President Trump, etc.). He was excoriated for his pre-release spin on the Mueller Report. And of course, it was a bit of spin. But in there too was a defense of the Executive's authority to do certain things no one else in our constitutional system is allowed to do -- strong-arming foreign government (Ukraine) for an arguable diplomatic/military advantage, even if that also brought a possible election campaign advantage. The Executive is authorized by the constitution, Article II, to do a whole lot of things that in the abstract may seem unseemly or even undemocratic. And Barr consistently defends Executive Authority. When I was in law school, the conservative take on things was that the powerful Executive we had up through LBJ had been supplanted by a kind of Legislative Supremacy after Watergate, as Congress asserted its supposed constitutional authority in all sorts of areas it previously kept out of; conservative thought the War Powers Act, for example, was unconstitutional. Conservatives therefore wanted to tilt the balance back toward Executive authority. Barr was part of that movement. So what about the post-election mess? There's really nothing inconsistent in Barr's behavior unless you believe that he should be acting as a political loyalist rather than as a strong-Executive constitutionalist. He saw nothing exceptional about the 2020 election that would have warranted the extraordinary measures Trump and his supporters were advocating. And what about the national security-related papers? Again, those papers belong to The Executive, to The Presidency, to the Article II constitutional Office, not to Donald J. Trump individually. He is therefore not bothered at all by the assertion of Executive authority under the Biden Administration demanding that they be returned. And he seems genuinely flabbergasted by Trump's refusal to do so quickly, honestly, and completely. And again: he doesn't care about his public reputation. His defense (and that's what it was, not officially but in fact) of Trump's actions in the first impeachment basically destroyed his ability to go back to the private sector and resume making big bucks. He didn't care. He will never hold elected office; no one would vote for a lumpy old Eyore-voiced character like him. He could have been a hero to Trumpies by supporting the election fraud claims. He never needed that or wanted that. He doesn't need to be loved. In today's world, where everyone wants attention and to be treated like someone's hero, that's kind of an admirable trait. Thank you for the summary. I get the general gist of it, but I’ll tell you what I think anyways. Barr was clear on the actions undertaken by the opposition and their politically motivated prosecution of Trump. He made a tremendous amount of sense to me, and in his comments I got the feeling he felt the Dems actions seriously eroded the faith people have in our system and was an absolute net negative for faith and truth in governing. It did and it was. On the flip side, it would make sense a guy like Barr detested the chaos that Trump seems to thrive in. It also seems clear he doesn’t like the man personally, but he really, really loves the idea of the United States as a symbol of decency in spite of some clear and obvious flaws in our system. In that regard, push comes to shove, given the choice between the establishment system with all it warts and biases, or chaos associated with the Trump factor, he would hold his nose and turn his head on the type of activity he strongly criticized post-Mueller. That’s the general path of insiders, and in his mind, better a broken system and shenanigans than the system gets torn to shreds. After all, from his perspective, what changed after the dem assault on truth and decency post Mueller? Nothing at all. He described an assault on a presidency yet here we are. So, Barr is a man I’d listen to, consider his perspective, and weigh out carefully what he says. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says or that I think he’s right all the time, but I’ll listen. 19 minutes ago, Kemp said: Apparently you didn't read the law. Big Surprise. Maybe bold lettering is something you can't read. And once again you were terrified to address what Trump did and changed the subject. Sometimes I feel sorry for you folks who can't offer up a defense of Trump. It must be difficult to always change the subject, but considering who you're defending, what other choice do you have? Another who can't read or more likely unable to handle truth. If a former President or Vice President finds Presidential records among personal materials, he or she is expected to contact NARA in a timely manner to secure the transfer of those Presidential records to NARA. Try again. Some people get stronger as the fight rages, you’re getting dumber with each post you share. Read. Comprehend. Consider. React. These are your marching orders, bold font or not. Know that I am praying for you. 2 1
BillStime Posted June 13, 2023 Posted June 13, 2023 4 hours ago, Wacka said: Barr knew of the recordings the Burisma official had of Hunter and the Big Guy, but did nothing. 17 minutes ago, Doc said: Show us the proof. "Just trust us!"
The Frankish Reich Posted June 13, 2023 Posted June 13, 2023 1 hour ago, Doc said: If only Putin had kept the pee tape... How do you know I didn't? -/s/ Vlad
Doc Brown Posted June 13, 2023 Posted June 13, 2023 9 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Bill Barr might be the most sensible, believable person in the country. It’s a shame the Dems wanted him exiled after he spoke sensibly the first time. Yeah. I laughed when the left was praising Bill Barr of all people (Trump's former "partner in crime" in their eyes). I do take his commentary on the indictment seriously though and I think for the first time Trump may be in some trouble. Pry not a smart idea knowing you're being recorded to admit to two reporters that the secret Pentagon documents you're showing them are classified, you could've declassified them when president, but you can't now. Just stupidity and carelessness on his part knowing that there's people in higher up places dying to charge you with a crime. 1
Kemp Posted June 13, 2023 Author Posted June 13, 2023 12 hours ago, Westside said: Says the guy who believes all the lefts bullshitt accusations. You wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped you in the face. Westside still avoiding the point and the law. You folks are just as desperate as Trump, the friend to Communist and fascist leaders around the globe. And you call us Commies. Trump always projects his shortcomings onto others. His supporters do the same, 1 1 1
BillStime Posted June 13, 2023 Posted June 13, 2023 7 hours ago, Doc Brown said: you could've declassified them when president C’mon man - declassified documents have no value to his friends.
Kemp Posted June 13, 2023 Author Posted June 13, 2023 12 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Thank you for the summary. I get the general gist of it, but I’ll tell you what I think anyways. Barr was clear on the actions undertaken by the opposition and their politically motivated prosecution of Trump. He made a tremendous amount of sense to me, and in his comments I got the feeling he felt the Dems actions seriously eroded the faith people have in our system and was an absolute net negative for faith and truth in governing. It did and it was. On the flip side, it would make sense a guy like Barr detested the chaos that Trump seems to thrive in. It also seems clear he doesn’t like the man personally, but he really, really loves the idea of the United States as a symbol of decency in spite of some clear and obvious flaws in our system. In that regard, push comes to shove, given the choice between the establishment system with all it warts and biases, or chaos associated with the Trump factor, he would hold his nose and turn his head on the type of activity he strongly criticized post-Mueller. That’s the general path of insiders, and in his mind, better a broken system and shenanigans than the system gets torn to shreds. After all, from his perspective, what changed after the dem assault on truth and decency post Mueller? Nothing at all. He described an assault on a presidency yet here we are. So, Barr is a man I’d listen to, consider his perspective, and weigh out carefully what he says. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says or that I think he’s right all the time, but I’ll listen. Some people get stronger as the fight rages, you’re getting dumber with each post you share. Read. Comprehend. Consider. React. These are your marching orders, bold font or not. Know that I am praying for you. I posted the law concerning Trump's actions. Your reaction is not even tangential. It's just avoid and attack. If Trump goes back into power, maybe you can become a party member of the newly formed Trump-MTG Party. Perhaps you could even run Bund meetings. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted June 13, 2023 Posted June 13, 2023 12 minutes ago, Kemp said: Westside still avoiding the point and the law. You folks are just as desperate as Trump, the friend to Communist and fascist leaders around the globe. And you call us Commies. Trump always projects his shortcomings onto others. His supporters do the same, This is really fascinating. Can't remember the source but I read one of their propagandists decided that socialist had been overused and wasn't effective anymore. So they changed to communist. As a bonus commie is easy to spell. These are truly evil, conniving people. 3
SoCal Deek Posted June 13, 2023 Posted June 13, 2023 13 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Obstruction of Justice is stupid? Stealing defense secrets is stupid? Morning Goose Yes arresting a former President over a dispute document retention is stupid. And yes, asserting a position in that dispute and then labeling the other side of that dispute “obstruction of Justice” is indeed not only stupid but very dangerous to the future of the country. It’s exactly what’s done in fascist /totalitarian regimes. 2 1 2 4 1 1
Westside Posted June 13, 2023 Posted June 13, 2023 2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Morning Goose Yes arresting a former President over a dispute document retention is stupid. And yes, asserting a position in that dispute and then labeling the other side of that dispute “obstruction of Justice” is indeed not only stupid but very dangerous to the future of the country. It’s exactly what’s done in fascist /totalitarian regimes. He already knows this. 1
ChiGoose Posted June 13, 2023 Posted June 13, 2023 22 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Morning Goose Yes arresting a former President over a dispute document retention is stupid. And yes, asserting a position in that dispute and then labeling the other side of that dispute “obstruction of Justice” is indeed not only stupid but very dangerous to the future of the country. It’s exactly what’s done in fascist /totalitarian regimes. It would be stupid not to indict someone who intentionally stole government secrets and obstructed the investigation into his conduct. Didn’t think that would be controversial, but here we are. 3 3
Recommended Posts