- Reaction score
When do we get to read your comments about the Biden crime family? And why haven't you commented about the Trump rape case yet?
When there’s indication of a meaningful criminal investigation, and information sufficiently authoritative that it’s worth commentary. Show me an indictment, a search warrant affidavit or something and I may find something worth commenting on.When do we get to read your comments about the Biden crime family?
And why haven't you commented about the Trump rape case yet?
I'm not defending Santos. Why would I? He's a slug. I'm just saying the timing is suspect. Maybe that's why it was kept hush, hush. So they could take it out of the drawer when they needed a diversion.Or, alternatively, George Santos is ludicrously, even comically corrupt, and DOJ conducted an investigation and developed reasonable grounds to indict on the strength of the evidence? The indictment document is public record and is floating around for anyone to read. It’s completely possible and reasonable for this to happen unconnected with other politically charged investigations. Santos appears to basically just be an absurd grifter who, quite accidentally, found himself taking his scheme WAY too far and ended up in Congress. He’s a total caricature of a compulsive liar. This one is pure FAFO.
What I find most interesting about the Santos indictment is that DOJ empaneled a grand jury, conducted an investigation, obtained documents, took statements, and laid a sealed indictment on a serving congressman with nobody outside being any the wiser that it was going on. That sort of investigative and prosecutorial work has to be making a few people nervous right now.
It still has to go through the appeal process anyway.When there’s indication of a meaningful criminal investigation, and information sufficiently authoritative that it’s worth commentary. Show me an indictment, a search warrant affidavit or something and I may find something worth commenting on.
Because I don’t really care enough to. This is a thread about the fracture of the United States, not Donald Trump’s private legal dramas. He’s civilly liable for battery and defamation; it’s not a criminal matter, it doesn’t impact his ability to run for office, and there’s no fascinating or novel legal questions at bar. I’m glad the victim will see justice, and that’s as far as I care to comment on that.
In other news today, beside the House announcing the investigation in the biden's corruption, there's also a connected incident. There are important documents pertaining to the investigation, that the FBI is withholding from the Select Committee in defiance of the House request for them. I'm pretty sure they have a copy already, but want it from the FBI to make it public. The FBI has never said they don't have it and cemented its existence today. Instead of saying they have nothing, they told the House they can't have it.
The two tiered justice system just gets more exposure every day.
The FBI haven't said anything about an ongoing investigation. They just said the House can't have it. It was a FBI whistle-blower that went to Grassley and told him about it. That's why I think he already has a copy, but they want the legality of it being provided by the FBI. Given the ongoing malfeasance of the FBI, I would have to be convinced that there is really any kind of investigation, into the bidens, going on.
I found this to be very interesting. About 30 years ago I asked why a photo of a piece of equipment was still classified.You piqued my curiosity, and I found the FBI response letter to the subpoena. This makes much more sense now; the house committee was requesting a Confidential Human Source information form called an FD-1023; I recognize this from when it started last week.
Confidential human sources are highly protected by law enforcement for very obvious reasons. The specific information on a single source debriefing can, potentially, ‘out’ and imperil a source. Up here, and I believe down there, there’s a VERY strong privilege attached to informant information.
The FBI is refusing to confirm the existence of or to disclose a specific human source form, which doesn’t surprise me at all. They’ve offered further dialogue to reach an accommodation that allows the committee to exercise any proper oversight authorities. They’ve also noted that there are legal precedents limiting those oversight authorities; they aren’t a blank cheque to peer into all affairs of the executive branch willy nilly. FBI will have engaged counsel heavily on this and I’m quite confident they’ll have made sure they’re on the right side of the law. The house committee does of course have access to the courts if they need the third branch of government to adjudicate a dispute between the other two.
Finding a copy of the letter was a bit of a pain in the ass, but here it is, heavily footnoted with legal references: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/05/FBI-Response-to-Subpoena-2023-05-10.pdf
With the random tangents he goes on, I doubt he ever followed a "script".Trump just participated in a live CNN town hall with a hostile journalist, unscripted.
He just doesn’t care about anything but himself.This guy must be an absolute nightmare as a client for lawyers and PR people. He self incriminates and defames like he has a monthly target to hit for a performance bonus.
The majority of his audience were Republican voters and people that voted for him last election. That was by design given that this town hall was for the primary audience. They said so from the get go.Trump just participated in a live CNN town hall with a hostile journalist, unscripted. He wrecked the journo and I doubt this turned out like CNN had hoped. The majority of the audience was definitely in his corner. I bet his ratings just went up again.
There are two answers; that's one of them (ratings). Trump was/is always good for ratings.Traffic.