-
@gibbon-rib said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
For Andy McCarthy, the raid is not about National Archive records and more a fishing expedition to try to find evidence on Trump related to the Capital riots.
This is what law enforcement commonly does with known criminals/terrorists, not sure if it is appropriate as a tactic to use against an ex-President. Sets a very dangerous precedent..
It's a slippery slope, if the FBI get away with it this time then what's to stop them raiding every former president who gets a mob of halfwits to storm the capitol in a half-armed attempt to steal an election?
Conspiracy time - the "insurrection" gave the FBI momentum to sate their appetite for more power.
"Critics of the FBI say that the bureau’s desire for more authority and surveillance tools is part of a decades-long expansion of the vast security apparatus inside the federal government."
The insurrectionists were the necessary useful idiots. The FBI just needed greater power to protect everyone
-
@gibbon-rib said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
For Andy McCarthy, the raid is not about National Archive records and more a fishing expedition to try to find evidence on Trump related to the Capital riots.
This is what law enforcement commonly does with known criminals/terrorists, not sure if it is appropriate as a tactic to use against an ex-President. Sets a very dangerous precedent..
It's a slippery slope, if the FBI get away with it this time then what's to stop them raiding every former president who gets a mob of halfwits to storm the capitol in a half-armed attempt to steal an election?
If the Dems think the state security apparatus is on their side, they are deluded. They only side with those who wield the power. After the mid-terms, this could well mean the Dems are on the receiving end. Careful when playing with fire
-
@stodders Actually I believe this is wrong. The bureaucrats are overwhelmingly Democrat. Public servants are on the whole. While a change in Congress to Republican control might see more hearings it won’t amount to anything because you have to have the judicial branch behind you. And this is controlled by the Democrats. Besides if you watch any hearing the witnesses deny everything and stonewall on the production of documents.
-
@broughie said in US Politics:
@stodders Actually I believe this is wrong. The bureaucrats are overwhelmingly Democrat. Public servants are on the whole. While a change in Congress to Republican control might see more hearings it won’t amount to anything because you have to have the judicial branch behind you. And this is controlled by the Democrats. Besides if you watch any hearing the witnesses deny everything and stonewall on the production of documents.
I wasn't talking about bureaucrats. I was talking about the security institutions - FBI/CIA/NSA.
Like the civil service in UK, US public servants probably lean towards the Dems, agreed.
Regarding the judiciary, the lower to mid level courts are more Dem leaning, but the conservatives have a 5-4 edge in the Supreme Court, and will do so for a while.
-
@stodders said in US Politics:
@broughie said in US Politics:
@stodders Actually I believe this is wrong. The bureaucrats are overwhelmingly Democrat. Public servants are on the whole. While a change in Congress to Republican control might see more hearings it won’t amount to anything because you have to have the judicial branch behind you. And this is controlled by the Democrats. Besides if you watch any hearing the witnesses deny everything and stonewall on the production of documents.
I wasn't talking about bureaucrats. I was talking about the security institutions - FBI/CIA/NSA.
These institutions are run by bureaucrats and you just have to look back to the Russian collusion hoax to see how corrupt they are.
Like the civil service in UK, US public servants probably lean towards the Dems, agreed.
Regarding the judiciary, the lower to mid level courts are more Dem leaning, but the conservatives have a 5-4 edge in the Supreme Court, and will do so for a while.
The problem is that this kind of case is unlikely to get to the Supreme Court. It will be handled in the lower courts if if goes to prosecution. Just need to find a favorable judge and favorable jurisdiction and all credibility goes out the window. Remember the recent acquittal of Sussman in the DC circuit. One of the jurors basically said it really wasn’t a big thing so she had acquitted him. I should try to find the quote. Here is the actual quote: The Sussmann Jury Forewoman June 1, 2022 / Jack Marshall "I don't think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI."
-
@stodders said in US Politics:
@broughie said in US Politics:
@stodders Actually I believe this is wrong. The bureaucrats are overwhelmingly Democrat. Public servants are on the whole. While a change in Congress to Republican control might see more hearings it won’t amount to anything because you have to have the judicial branch behind you. And this is controlled by the Democrats. Besides if you watch any hearing the witnesses deny everything and stonewall on the production of documents.
I wasn't talking about bureaucrats. I was talking about the security institutions - FBI/CIA/NSA.
Like the civil service in UK, US public servants probably lean towards the Dems, agreed.
Regarding the judiciary, the lower to mid level courts are more Dem leaning, but the conservatives have a 5-4 edge in the Supreme Court, and will do so for a while.
6-3 isn't it? Although Gorsuch should never have been there at all, so should have been 5-4.
I thought the lower courts were a complete mixed bag - state and federal level. Rep judges dominate in Red states etc.
Regardless, it's complete lunacy - I suspect that most Americans don't even realise how utterly fucked in the head it is that judges even have declared political affiliations in the first place. This doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. The judiciary is not meant to be an extension of the political branches of government, it's totally shafted.
-
@broughie said in US Politics:
@stodders said in US Politics:
@broughie said in US Politics:
@stodders Actually I believe this is wrong. The bureaucrats are overwhelmingly Democrat. Public servants are on the whole. While a change in Congress to Republican control might see more hearings it won’t amount to anything because you have to have the judicial branch behind you. And this is controlled by the Democrats. Besides if you watch any hearing the witnesses deny everything and stonewall on the production of documents.
I wasn't talking about bureaucrats. I was talking about the security institutions - FBI/CIA/NSA.
These institutions are run by bureaucrats and you just have to look back to the Russian collusion hoax to see how corrupt they are.
Like the civil service in UK, US public servants probably lean towards the Dems, agreed.
Regarding the judiciary, the lower to mid level courts are more Dem leaning, but the conservatives have a 5-4 edge in the Supreme Court, and will do so for a while.
The problem is that this kind of case is unlikely to get to the Supreme Court. It will be handled in the lower courts if if goes to prosecution. Just need to find a favorable judge and favorable jurisdiction and all credibility goes out the window.
Because the Supreme Court is objective and apolitical 🙄
-
So there is now the possibility of the warrant for the Mar-a-Lago search being unsealed, which could expose the witch hunt or show due process. I'm guessing that it won't matter much, one side will say one thing and one side will say another and good luck in convincing either differently.
For me it will hinge on whether Trump objects or not...
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
So there is now the possibility of the warrant for the Mar-a-Lago search being unsealed, which could expose the witch hunt or show due process. I'm guessing that it won't matter much, one side will say one thing and one side will say another and good luck in convincing either differently.
For me it will hinge on whether Trump objects or not...
Good. This needs full transparency.
-
Just a few documents about nukes, apparently.
DoJ and Trump both say they want the warrant made public, so we should know soon enough. But since neither of them wants it kept secret, I guess it's not going to tell us much.
Presumably Trump could also release his property receipt if he wanted, as you say the more transparency the better
-
If cartoon this was about tits vs ass then it would have nailed the demographic shift and societal distancing of America.
-
Fight! Fight! Fight!!!
Okay, so it’s Round 175 at this point, but it’s still a fight and is she ever bitter. She still blames Bern for losing her coronation, and she’s jockeying for position now.
-
Just a flesh wound, reportedly, he’ll pull through it and I certainly hope he does. Good thing it wasn’t a handgun. Pretty sad security in NY, there’s been no moratorium on the fatwa and Rushie hasn’t stopped receiving death threats, so somebody was asleep.
-
@Kid-Chocolate said in US Politics:
Fight! Fight! Fight!!!
Okay, so it’s Round 175 at this point, but it’s still a fight and is she ever bitter. She still blames Bern for losing her coronation, and she’s jockeying for position now.
Please go away Hillary. Please, forever!
-
Complete and utter farce.
Search warrant here:
-
@Kid-Chocolate said in US Politics:
Complete and utter farce.
Search warrant here:
The only farce is that there are substantial numbers of people gullible enough to believe shysters like Sean Davies and his conspiracy peddling website. The tweet you quote is so obviously total BS. "...literally any record Trump ever saw, read or created..." FFS, it's laughable.
What the warrant actually says they're after is:
"All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed...including...any government and/or presidential record...". Plus some stuff about national security communications and classified material. So what they're allowed to look for is illegally obtained government documents and communications. Fair enough.What this warrant doesn't tell us is why they are after them, but that was never going to be in there. Presumably the FBI has evidence which the judge agreed was enough to grant the warrant. We don't get to see that, so the debate rages on.
-
-
@stodders said in US Politics:
I see Salman Rushdie has been stabbed (in the neck, but not confirmed) as he was about to give a speech in NY.
Sad day for free speech in the land of the (supposedly) free.
Geezuuz, looks like he could lose an eye.
US Politics