Update: 11th Circuit Appeals Court "sacks" MAL Special Master

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

The danger of inaction on trump is far far far greater than the danger of action

[Amazatron]

If going after Trump truly does push us to Civil War like these cuck media people are saying, so fucking be it.

[skillzdadirecta]

5 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

If going after Trump truly does push us to Civil War like these cuck media people are saying, so fucking be it.

It won't. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The danger of inaction on trump is far far far greater than the danger of action

I agree, but that doesn’t mean those within the decision making tree feel the same way. Obviously we have limited views into what they are doing and thinking, but it does appear they took a very slow path to this point given the seriousness of the issue at hand.

 

Why might that be?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I agree, but that doesn’t mean those within the decision making tree feel the same way. Obviously we have limited views into what they are doing and thinking, but it does appear they took a very slow path to this point given the seriousness of the issue at hand.

 

Why might that be?

 

The simple reason is that if you're going to pursue a criminal case against a former President -- especially one of this nature involving violations the particular statutes in question -- a measured approach is probably the correct course of action.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

15 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

If going after Trump truly does push us to Civil War like these cuck media people are saying, so fucking be it.

 

10 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

It won't. 

 

It won't be "civil war" in the usual sense, but we should certainly expect to see a surge in "stochastic terrorism" directed at marginalized groups or others perceived as the enemies of the right.

[Air_Delivery]

Oklahoma City bombing type events. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

The simple reason is that if you're going to pursue a criminal case against a former President -- especially one of this nature involving violations the particular statutes in question -- a measured approach is probably the correct course of action.

I would say the timeline that we’ve seen to date (which again, limited views here, could be more complex than seems) suggests far more than a measured approach. I simply don’t believe if material of the sort that is being reported were on the Obama’s coffee table that they would have been given nearly the time and courtesy Trump has been to this point.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

17 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

Oklahoma City bombing type events. 

 

Possibly, but those are really hardened targets now in the post-9/11 era.

 

I'm thinking more along the lines of gatherings of or facilities/organizations that serve minorities, non-binary people, etc.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

13 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I would say the timeline that we’ve seen to date (which again, limited views here, could be more complex than seems) suggests far more than a measured approach. I simply don’t believe if material of the sort that is being reported were on the Obama’s coffee table that they would have been given nearly the time and courtesy Trump has been to this point.

 

I won't disagree that Trump could've been given "special treatment" in light of his political volatility, specifically if a subpoena was actually served for the material prior to requesting the search warrant. 

 

I just genuinely do believe that now that the Rubicon of an actual criminal investigation for which there is enough "probable cause" to justify the authorization of a search warrant has been crossed that there will be less reticence at the DOJ to pursue an indictment should the evidence point in that direction.  I have little doubt that there will be some hesitancy, but a crack has already appeared in that dam.

[Massdriver]

If they got something out of this, they need to charge and arrest him and get control of the narrative. Otherwise this has all just fired up his base and ensured he will be POTUS again.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

If they got something out of this, they need to charge and arrest him and get control of the narrative. Otherwise this has all just fired up his base and ensured he will be POTUS again.

 

There really is absolutely no way for the DOJ to "get control of the narrative" nor should they even remotely attempt to do so.  They should do their jobs and whatever happens, happens.  

[Brian]

I still don’t see how this ensures his victory. His base was always going to vote for him. Things like this and issues like abortion should be enough to move the needle for independents and undecided to vote for Dems. You guys always wish for the worst. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

I still don’t see how this ensures his victory. His base was always going to vote for him. Things like this and issues like abortion should be enough to move the needle for independents and undecided to vote for Dems. You guys always wish for the worst. 

Yeah, I’m a bit confused. The people who are going to vote for the guy no matter what is not enough to get him elected. So who exactly does this win over?

[Kal-El814]

There are always going to be people who stand by their man regardless of actions. Certain people have more magnetism, or whatever you wanna call it, then others. Trump seems to have more than his fair share.

 

But this, "he will inevitably be POTUS" stuff is fuckin weird, especially given the fact that he just lost and not EVERYONE that voted for him is a true believer. Holding onto nuclear information like it's a trinket is fucking bananas, even for him, and r/TheDonald or Truth or 4chan, or kiwifarms, or Gab, or Parler or wherever the assassination of these g-men will be plotted are not effective litmus tests for literally anything.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Quite honestly, I've heard just about enough about from every corner about "firing up" or "emboldening" his base.  His fucking base lives in a PERPETUAL STATE of being "fired up" or "emboldened" anyway!

 

I just don't give a damn about what effect this stuff has on his base anymore.  And neither should you.

 

This isn't directed at either @Massdriver or @5timechamp so please don't take it personally at all  I've just had my fill of hearing about it from everyfreakingwhere!

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Quite honestly, I've heard just about enough about from every corner about "firing up" or "emboldening" his base.  His fucking base lives in a PERPETUAL STATE of being "fired up" or "emboldened" anyway!

 

I just don't give a damn about what effect this stuff has on his base anymore.  And neither should you.

 

This isn't directed at either @Massdriver or @5timechamp so please don't take it personally.  I've just had my fill of hearing about it from everyfreakingwhere!

THANK YOU!

[silentbob]

15 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Yeah, I’m a bit confused. The people who are going to vote for the guy no matter what is not enough to get him elected. So who exactly does this win over?

We already know that, but states already are implementing New laws/rules that doesn’t seem to make the vote matter anyways. Already see it with today Republican leaders/potential new leaders and the redirect being spewed loud and proud for its dictator like direction. Can’t elect a new president yet but 2 years might be enough for some minds to clear, be arrested, or get themselves killed like the asshole yesterday. 

[Chairslinger]

32 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I won't disagree that Trump could've been given "special treatment" in light of his political volatility, specifically if a subpoena was actually served for the material prior to requesting the search warrant. 

 

I just genuinely do believe that now that the Rubicon of an actual criminal investigation for which there is enough "probable cause" to justify the authorization of a search warrant has been crossed that there will be less reticence at the DOJ to pursue an indictment should the evidence point in that direction.  I have little doubt that there will be some hesitancy, but a crack has already appeared in that dam.

 

 

I remember when this started people were wondering why, out of all the things Trump has done, was this big move about the PRA.

 

I think we have since seen that it is about that, and more serious than people first thought it could be.

 

But when I was thinking about the original question I came up with an answer that I didn't see bandied about much at all.

 

Maybe the DOJ figures you "break the ice" with a dead to rights, clear cut violation like a PRA violation. Even Trump seems to understand they got him on that. That's how open and shut this is, even if the magnitude is still in question.

 

But going forward, now that you got him on this, it arguably makes it easier to charge him for stuff that is maybe even more serious, but a less sure slam dunk. Obstruction, conspiracy, stuff like that. You get him on one charge, it's less of an absolute landmine when you swing and miss on something else.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, silentbob said:

We already know that, but states already are implementing New laws/rules that doesn’t seem to make the vote matter anyways.

 

Stop reading the dumb stuff posted on this board if you actually believe this is the case

[marioandsonic]

Even so, I don't want to see Trump run again.  I just don't want to take that risk.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

19 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

I remember when this started people were wondering why, out of all the things Trump has done, was this big move about the PRA.

 

I think we have since seen that it is about that, and more serious than people first thought it could be.

 

But when I was thinking about the original question I came up with an answer that I didn't see bandied about much at all.

 

Maybe the DOJ figures you "break the ice" with a dead to rights, clear cut violation like a PRA violation. Even Trump seems to understand they got him on that. That's how open and shut this is, even if the magnitude is still in question.

 

But going forward, now that you got him on this, it arguably makes it easier to charge him for stuff that is maybe even more serious, but a less sure slam dunk. Obstruction, conspiracy, stuff like that. You get him on one charge, it's less of an absolute landmine when you swing and miss on something else.

 

PRA?

[Chairslinger]

 

5 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

Even so, I don't want to see Trump run again.  I just don't want to take that risk.

 

 

I am not sure if it's possible to stop it if he is dead set on it.

 

But if it were a "snap my fingers" decision I tend to agree with you. Lots of Dems are like, "Yeah, we can beat him and he would drag down others, it would be a gift to have him run again".

 

But I learned my lesson in '16. The possibility of a total GOP meltdown is not worth the very real risk of a second Trump term.

 

Like I said though, not really up to us or Dems. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

PRA?

 

 

Presidential Records Act. Maybe that's not the right one to reference because the Espionage Act is listed in the warrant, right. But the PRA is where this all started because that's what got the ball rolling in the subpoena.

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

The Murdocks at least don't want him to run again... they've gone full DeSantis.  Establishment Republicans are over the dude but they're too chickenshit to do anything about him.

[silentbob]

50 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Stop reading the dumb stuff posted on this board if you actually believe this is the case

I’m not saying it’s the case but we know they sure as hell are trying.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, silentbob said:

I’m not saying it’s the case but we know they sure as hell are trying.

 

The always vague "they" isn't going to make your case. Which states have laws that are going change the outcome of a 2024 election that Trump loses. Be specific.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

 

The always vague "they" isn't going to make your case. Which states have laws that are going change the outcome of a 2024 election that Trump loses. Be specific.

Florida possibly with DeSantis' election police.

 

In other news...

 

FBI investigating 'unprecedented' number of threats against bureau in wake of Mar-a-Lago search

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/12/politics/fbi-threats-maralago-trump-search/index.html

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Florida possibly with DeSantis' election police.

 

Florida is not changing the outcome of the 2024 election. Same thing if Texas passed a law that said preemptively Trump wins the state's electors. We know the states that Trump needs to flip to win, and it is several, and there is no laws being changed that would possibly do what certain people on this board keep believing is going to happen.

[Anathema-]

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

The simple reason is that if you're going to pursue a criminal case against a former President -- especially one of this nature involving violations the particular statutes in question -- a measured approach is probably the correct course of action.

 

I think Garland's history and present actions have shown that he wouldn't be doing this except to pursue serious charges.

 

It would seem that ultimately a trap was set for him with the subpoena for these items. After all he couldn't deny that he improperly kept them if they were turned over, but now he also can't deny that he knew he wasn't allowed to keep them.

 

I think it's also fair to conclude that charging him as far as you can get away with is a necessary component to seizing the documents. It's part and parcel of why they had to go in to begin with. If it's serious enough to need a warrant then it needs to be because they have no choice but to indict.

[Anathema-]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Quite honestly, I've heard just about enough about from every corner about "firing up" or "emboldening" his base.  His fucking base lives in a PERPETUAL STATE of being "fired up" or "emboldened" anyway!

 

I just don't give a damn about what effect this stuff has on his base anymore.  And neither should you.

 

If anything, the response to the raid of mar-a-lago has laid bare the nation's long-lived abusive relationship with the conservative movement.

[silentbob]

 

13 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Florida is not changing the outcome of the 2024 election. Same thing if Texas passed a law that said preemptively Trump wins the state's electors. We know the states that Trump needs to flip to win, and it is several, and there is no laws being changed that would possibly do what certain people on this board keep believing is going to happen.

You just had Republican senators a few years ago, still today, denying and trying to overturn the 2020 election results. I don’t think the Republican Party of some sates really care about law anymore. Look at the people backed for the GOP party by Trump and others. They are fucking nut jobs with potential for power and they’re welcoming it as the norm, and most are in these swing states Biden just won on. I wouldn’t put anything past these nazis 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, silentbob said:

 

You just had Republican senators a few years ago, still today, denying and trying to overturn the 2020 election results. I don’t think the Republican Party of some sates really care about law anymore. Look at the people backed for the GOP party by Trump and others. They are fucking nut jobs with potential for power and they’re welcoming it as the norm, and most are in these swing states Biden just won on. I wouldn’t put anything past these nazis 

Literally none of this matters. Which states that Trump would need to flip to create a Trump electoral win have these laws coming that will achieve this stolen victory.

 

Again, be specific! 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Honestly depends on the midterm results but AZ is the state most likely to go full in on the independent state legislature bullshit. 
 

WI won’t because Vos won re-election. He’s for rigging everything but the results though he may be constrained by a dem governor at this point. 

PA, AZ, and MI hinge on state legislative and gubernatorial results, as their governor candidates are all insane, and they don’t fall far from the legislative tree. 
GA is strangely resistant to Trumps bullshit so doubtful it could be them. 

if reform of the electoral count act* doesn’t happen and congress goes to republicans in 2024 all bets are off though, especially if it comes down to one close state. They’ve already stole one election this way! If it’s one close state they will steal the election. 
 

(*congress could decide to ignore some parts of the electoral count act because it is one congress setting the rules for another, future congress which can’t happen)

[silentbob]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Literally none of this matters. Which states that Trump would need to flip to create a Trump electoral win have these laws coming that will achieve this stolen victory.

 

Again, be specific! 

well @b_m_b_m_b_m made a good list there. Here is one link for Arizona 

DoJ sues Arizona over voting law that requires proof of citizenship | US news | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

Measure signed into law by Republican governor in March a ‘textbook violation’ of law designed to protect voters, department says

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

That’s just normal every voter suppression zzzzzzz