Trump Campaign Releases Everyone Who Signed An NDA About 2016 Campaign, Saying It Will Not Try To Enforce Them
from the some-good-news dept
Two years ago we wrote about how a former Trump campaign staffer, Jessica Denson had sued the Trump campaign, claiming that the non-disclosure agreement she was pressured into signing by the campaign was not enforceable. As we know, Trump loves his non-disclosure agreements. He seems to use them frequently. When you’re a private citizen, or a private corporation, that’s one thing, but when you’re the President of the United States — or the campaign vehicle to elect you to that office — NDAs take on a slightly different feel.
That case has bounced around over the last two years, though back in March of 2021, the court ruled in favor of Denson, and said that the NDA was “invalid and unenforceable.” The case still went on, however, in an effort to turn it into a class action to release everyone else who worked on their campaign from their own NDAs. Other former employees sought to intervene and join the case as well.
There was some more back and forth, but this week (perhaps realizing there are some other big legal issues on the horizon), the Trump campaign officially announced that it was releasing everyone from their NDAs. That means, anyone who worked for the Trump campaign no longer needs to worry about “breaking their NDA” for talking about what went on.
Trump’s campaign organization (now the “Make America Great Again PAC”) issued a declaration by the PAC’s treasurer, that it will not enforce any NDAs.
The Campaign hereby avows that it shall not ever enforce or attempt to enforce any confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions contained in any written agreements signed by any employees, independent contractors, or volunteers who worked for the Campaign on the 2016 Presidential Election.
Of course, in theory, that leaves it open to trying to enforce such agreements against those who worked on the 2020 election (or 2024 election if it gets to that, or just for the PAC these days), but still, it’s a start.
The PAC also filed a “sample letter” releasing former staffers from their NDA.
We understand that you signed an NDA in connection with your work for the Campaign during the 2016 Presidential Election.
We are writing to advise you that you are no longer bound by the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in your NDA. The Campaign has determined that it will not enforce these provisions.
Chalk another one up for actual free speech.
Of course, I wonder if we’ll now see a flood of news stories about the 2016 campaign, as staffers and volunteers finally feel comfortable revealing what else went on.
Filed Under: campaigns, donald trump, free speech, jessica denson, nda, non-disparagement
Companies: donald j. trump for president
Comments on “Trump Campaign Releases Everyone Who Signed An NDA About 2016 Campaign, Saying It Will Not Try To Enforce Them”
Regarding using NDA’s for a presidential campaign, I’ll let Joel Robinson do the talking for me.
Re:
It stinks!
Re: Re:
Watch out for snakes!
Re: Re: Re: Wha?
Who said that?!?
Re: Re: Re:2
Me, on this flight to LA!
Trump’s campaign organization (now the “Make America Great Again PAC”)…
That PAC’s acronym is just one letter away from a MEGA PAC. 😉
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Did anyone hold a gun to her head and make her join the campaign? She was free to say “ fuck the nda” and leave. .
Re:
Sure, unemployment benefits are so easy to live on. Dickhead.
Re:
Some people actually believe in what they are doing, so maybe at the time she figured an NDA was obvious for a campaign (duh) and no big deal. Maybe she even found some clauses troubling but everything in life is a tradeoff.
She was obviously later disillusioned about the campaign if not the candidate, and feels the need to be able to criticize something she wanted to be able to support until it turned into a clusterfuck of stupid and evil.
Meanwhile, others have sold their souls to ride the gravy train they originally were against so sadamantly.
Re: Re:
*saddamantly 😉
distraction campaign
It is just an attempt to flood the news stories with a lot of junk so people don’t focus on the actual important news. Biden and dems had some success getting their legislation passed, trump is under heavy investigation, republicans have stirred up a hornets nest with abortion, and school shooting deaths to name a few.
The junk might be very juicy, shiny, funny, gross, or horrible. But it is still just to bury the real news from people’s eyes so they forget how truly horrible the ideas and actions of politicians have been and how bad things still are in America.
Don’t forget Trump cares about attention he doesn’t care if it is good or bad attention.
Re:
At least until he tries to sue them for defamation.
But it doesn’t matter in the end. America needs drastic action to fix itself.
Re:
Yes, Trump is clearly trying to distract people from all the bad press about Trump by *checks notes* losing a vexatious lawsuit he was using to suppress criticism of him.
Re: Re:
Actually, he might be. I’ve just learnt that Trump’s under investion over a potential violation of the Espionage Act. What could need averting the world’s eyes more than that?
Re: 'Look over there, a distraction!'
‘Look at what was said/done several years ago!’
‘Okay, but what about what’s being said/done right now…’
‘Who would care about that, no you should definitely pay attention to stuff several years old rather than what’s currently going on.’
Yeah, no chance Trump would have given the go-ahead for people to say potentially bad things about him unless there was a very good reason to want to keep the focus on what took place in the past rather than the present, the sad thing is is that it’ll almost certainly work because ‘ooh juicy story!’
Re: Re:
Yes, I’m sure this story of Trump dropping a years-old breach-of-contract will garner much more attention from the news media than the FBI raiding his house three days ago. *eyeroll*
Re: Re: Re: 'Who cares what was found NOW, focus on what was said THEN.'
I didn’t say or mean to imply that it was a good tactic, merely that someone with an ego Trump’s size would really need some reason to suddenly give the greenlight for people to start saying (almost certainly bad) things about his campaign that they’d been barred from doing so, and ‘look, a distraction from what’s currently happening!’ would certainly hit the mark.
It’s a distraction tactic they are pulling now.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
As we know. Mike Masnick loves to hate and talk out his Ass
What I said in the subject. This is another garbage article from Masnick. Hey, Masnick. How about you do some real journalism and actually interview the people and places you write articles instead of talking out your ass?
Re:
… said nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re:
These Hamilton replacements really are getting worse by the week. At least the original Shiva Ayyadurai fanboy took a while before defaulting back to “asshole” settings.
Re: Re: Re:
I suspect that pretending to be sane and rational in order to launder a new account was as exhausting to him as dealing with him when he has another psychotic break is to everyone else.
Re:
You obviously never heard of the Techdirt podcast, where he does that stuff you say he doesn’t, because you don’t live in the real world.
Re:
So, get Karl to actually do more work?
I mean, while I’m more than fine with that, you might not like the result…
IANAL
Saying that you won’t enforce a valid NDA is not the same as a legal document stating you will not enforce an NDA.
Re:
Did you miss the part of the article where it was stated that the NDA was ruled invalid and unenforcable?
Only those people who did not also work on the 2016 campaign. I’m thinking they probably didn’t mean to word it in that way, but the quoted text is unambiguous: it says “any written agreements” signed by people who worked for that campaign, not just those signed in relation to that campaign.
Makes me question the quality of their legal representation (again…), as it’s kind of their job to write exactly what they mean and think of any other ways text could be interpreted.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
AWS training institute in Hyderabad
This blog is very nice thanks for sharing
blog more
https://www.kellytechno.com/Hyderabad/Course/amazon-web-services-training
Great!
Still doesn’t change the.fact he was President and thanks to his court picks, roe vs wade was overturned
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No longer a concern
Given the outright abuse of power in the partisan raid on his home. Trump has a much larger, and legitimate, case to deal with now.
Congratulations to idiot Dems in power. Trump was background noise for independent voters as of late. You just made him a martyr.
Think about the last few days. Law enforcement is generally out of control in this country. Now you hand a potential 24 candidate to the public with a vendetta against the FBI. Against legal abuses. Against partisan swords.
Re:
… said nobody not demented, ever.
Re: Re:
I especially love the irony that a law Trump signed in 2018 about the handling of classified information could end up biting him on the ass. I guess he should’ve defunded the police before he left office.
Re: Re: Re: How'd that saying go, 'Lock him up'?
Republicans were big fans of punishing someone for keeping classified documents in your home when it came to Hilary, if Trump did have classified documents at his place(which according to that article seems to have been the case) I’m sure they’ll be equally as harsh on him.
Re: Re: Re:2
Lodos proves otherwise, as expected of a Trumpist like him.
Re: Re: Re:3
You still fail to understand the difference between pro trump and anyone-but-Clinton.
I am the latter.
Re: Re: Re:4
You’re not, but you keep telling yourself that and maybe one day it’ll be true.
Looking forward to hearing you say you voted for Trump in 2024!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Well, one difference here is Clinton was asked for all documents. And then purged the servers.
Another is there’s no evidence, yet, if the documents are classified. And finally, there’s a difference between using personal accounts for government business and using government equipment for government business.
The big difference here is nobody asked to review the documents officially. To find out A) if they were classified, and B) if trump should or should not maintain possession.
You also fail to recognise the entire lack of effort against Clinton and a nightmare invasion against Trump.
Or that my initial commentary is regardless of who is targeted. This is beyond overkill for a few boxes of documents.
If we fought our wars like we conduct domestic politics we may win a bit more often.
It’s not about who the target is. I would have considered the same action against Clinton overkill. It’s the method of carrying it out.
Re: Re: Re:3
Wasn’t Trump asked to turn over a bunch of boxes worth of documents and only turned over a portion of them, which thus necessitated the seizure of the remaining boxes of documents from Trump’s “Southern White House”? Because I seem to recall hearing that Trump was asked to turn over a bunch of boxes worth of documents and only turned over a portion of them.
If your godking broke the laws of man, he deserves to be held to account under those laws. If you can’t live with that, go join those fucking assholes yelling “civil war!” over the same shit they’d cheer if it was done to literally every registered Democratic lawmaker and voter in the country. Those fascists will take you in and make you their ally and teach you how to kill without flinching, and I’m sure you’d love to have that training in you when you and your allies all march on the Capitol again to start another, bloodier, more successful insurrection against Congress and the U.S. federal government that means to install your fascist godking into power for the rest of his life.
How does it feel to know people like you are already planning out how to kill their fellow countrymen—their families and friends, even!—because, like you, they refuse to accept that Trump is a bastard who would wreck this country if it meant destroying all his enemies in a hail of gunfire, actual fire, and maybe even a nuclear holocaust?
How does it feel to know you’re one of them and you always will be so long as you worship the ground that orange bastard walks?
How does it feel to want me dead and buried (possibly not even in that order) because I hate Donald Trump?
How does it feel to be a MAGA cultist now, you gruesome son of a bitch?
Re: Re: Re:4
I’ve never remotely said anything as such. I’m not sure how you reached such a conclusion either, since more often than not: I agree with you.
I wouldn’t know.
I don’t know about godking. Sounds like it’s you propping him up higher. Not me. But—>
Scroll down slightly. That’s exactly what I said.
…and who’s yelling to start a civil war?
The capital? I wasn’t there. Nor were anyone I supported or support. As far as actual news reports, less that 50 people entered without permission. Those people are being tried and convicted. Appears that the people are being held accountable for the actions they took.
None of that has anything to do with an over the top raid over a few boxes of paperwork. That could have just as easily been picked up by the two Marshals or the secret service.
Mind you, I didn’t call for a raid on Clinton. So stop lumping me in with the militant right with no real cause. Please.
Because this isn’t about Trump; not for me. This is yet another military level raid carried out by by law enforcement. This is extreme. Out of control. Over the top. We’re not China or North Korea. This isn’t what America is supposed to do!
Re: Re: Re:5
And yet, if it were to happen to Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat you want dead or in jail, you’d be cheering it from the fucking rooftops! You’re just mad because the law enforcement apparatus is going after your godking instead of the people who “deserve” to have their faces caved in by the butt of an FBI agent’s gun! That’s all this is: You’re angry because the FBI isn’t hurting the people they’re supposed to be hurting!
One of your boys ended up suiciding by cop today because he was angry about a former game show host not being allowed to keep classified documents he stole from the White House. And the fucked up thing is, all his MAGA allies who wanted the FBI and the Democrats dead or in jail are all saying he’s a crisis actor and his death was a false-flag operation. Even in death, you fuckers can’t be martyrs because you assholes think everything is fake unless your godking says otherwise.
If Donald Trump is arrested, I guarantee—as in, I will literally bet my fucking life on this—you’ll find some way to bitch about how the FBI isn’t doing the same to the Democrats you think should be buried beneath a prison forever. You’ll never decry Trump for breaking the law unless you can say “WELL THESE GUYS DID IT TOO” because you’ll never be able to shittalk your orange godking without resorting to whataboutism.
Me? I don’t have that problem. If someone I voted for or supported in some way provably broke the law, fuck ’em. Let them be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. I have no qualms about saying that without saying “WELL WHY ISN’T TRUMP IN JAIL YET”. If you can’t be that unequivocal in any denunciation of Donald Trump—if you can’t bring yourself to say “Donald Trump should be in jail if he broke the law” without lamenting how the politicians you hate down to your bone marrow aren’t in jail—you’re little better than the deluded MAGA shitheads who raided the Capitol in an attempt to get their godking installed into power.
Christ, now I remember why I stopped replying to you: I’ve got a fucking headache that’s throbbing so hard that I feel like I might actually have an anuerysm. You piss me off so much that it might actually kill me. Go ahead and prep the inevitable celebration you’ll throw in the event of my death if you want.
Re: Re: Re:6
While I also disagree strongly with Lodos on this, nothing he’s said suggests that that would be the case. In fact, he explicitly disclaims such a thing in the comment you’re replying to. This seems like you’re jumping the gun in this case.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
But Stephen would never jump the gun. He never goads anyone or feeds the trolls. He’s an outstanding representation of the queer community, the bastion of true love and the way forward. He’d never, ever do anything wrong!
Re: Re: Re:8
how about you come find me and shoot me in the head if you’re that desperate to get rid of me
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
How about you come back with a better rebuttal if the implied assertion isn’t true?
Re: Re: Re:10
He’s not gonna.
Given the chance, if it helps to clock engagement or insightful/funny votes for the week, Stephen will goad, shitpost, and feed trolls while demanding that ACs stop it.
Re: Re: Re:11
Glad I’m not the only one noticed his hypocrisy.
Re: Re: Re:9
Sorry, I’m afraid I don’t swing that way or follow those methods of sexual gratification. But if you need a safe space I understand there is a growing niche of unbirth/cock vore on Rule34.
Re: Re: Re:10
The pleasure of a cock is no different than the pleasure of a finger. Or fingers. Of tiger. Or dildo. Sod off. Or sod on. But seriously… move along now.
Re: Re: Re:11
Wow. If that’s how you treat your defenders, no wonder other commenters call you a troll.
Re: Re: Re:12
You implied I need a safe space. I do not.
Re: Re: Re:13
I’m Lostinlodos. I mean, I must be right. If everyoneposting under the AC badge is the same individual, then so is anyone posting under any other single name. FYI, the other AC was posting in responseto Stephen. Follow the threading, troll.
Re: Re: Re:14
I don’t know how you managed to use my user name. But it is trademarked.
Re: Re: Re:15
Trademarks don’t mean much if they’re not enforced.
I highly doubt you’re going to drag an anonymous nobody on the Internet over that.
Re: Re: Re:16
Probably not. But it’s not a money issue for me, in getting it registered. It’s a liability protection.
I don’t know how a user created another account with the same user name. And reported that to the site. But for me, it’s been my primary public name since the early 90s. It’s an easily trackable presence.
The last thing I need in life is someone tuning around pretending to be me and posting shite i don’t believe in.
Re: Re: Re:17
I don’t know how a user created another account with the same user name.
Lolwut? Is this another deliberate misperception of yours? If not, check again.
Re: Re: Re:18
They have their user the same name as mine. I didn’t even know that was Possible. But it shouldn’t be! That’s not me!
Re: Re: Re:19
I am a Shadow. The true self…
Re: Re: Re:15
Oh, herewe go. Another IP troll that’s never heard of nominative use. m-/
Re: Re: Re:16
Ip, intellectual property? Uh, nope. TM is (supposed to be) about securing a branding identity. I am lostinlodos (LostInLoDOS, lostinlodos, LostInLowDOS, lostinlowdos).
Re: Re: Re:17
Hi, I’m Lostinlodos, the dumbass IP troll that doesn’t even know how to tell when someone’s signed into an account on this website.
Re: Re: Re:14
(profile)
Re: Re: Re:15
I’m still missing something.
My legit registered account has a profile page.
The imposter does not have such link.
I’m, honestly, and seriously, not getting what is being got to at here.
Re: Re: Re:16
I’m saying the impersonating AC is missing that, not you.
Re: Re: Re:6
My hatred of Clinton stops short of demanding death. I’ve never wished any politician dead. No matter how bad they are.
And no, I’ve always commented AGAINST over-use of force.
Feel free to find some link to anywhere I said going after a non-violent individual with a massage force of dozens of heavily armed law enforcement was actually a good thing. I’ve long posted against such responses.
Uh, I don’t have any kids. Wtf are you talking about. And why would you even imply such a thing?!!?
Allegedly. I’ve seen no evidence yet this is the case.
Arrest criminals? Yes, absolutely. I already said that below. Storm their homes? Absolutely not!!! I also said that.
See next
What part of “if —yes!” Is unclear?
My dislike of political protection from law is bipartisan. And aside from Clinton, you’ll be hard pressed to find a politician I hate ‘to the bone marrow’.
Why would I do that?! 99% of the time you’re quite rational and I enjoy our debates.
It just appears your hatred for trump means anything and everything else doesn’t apply.
I didn’t make this about trump. I pointed out that a good reason for letting go of NDAs was he now has an actual, legitimate, concern to deal with. Not some fantasy about elections or defamation or whatever else he and other politicians (both parties) are running to court for.
This isn’t about politics. It shouldn’t be. This is a moment of WTF, they did it again!
Cops kill innocent bystanders as is. At some point can we not just agree that a military raid, for a fake badge, a server, a box or three, against non-violent individuals, is overkill and shouldn’t be happening?
Re: Re: Re:7
Good thing that didn’t happen when the FBI entered Mar-A-Lago, or maybe there’d be something factual to talk about! (Trump wasn’t even there when the seizure occured.)
The part where you immediately whined about Democrats not having their homes searched and their asses arrested for crimes. Again: What part of “you can unequivocally denounce someone for wrongdoing without some shitty whataboutism tossed in for good measure” don’t you fucking understand?
Because I hate your godking.
And let me be absolutely clear about this: When I say “hate”, I mean HATE. This is primal, deep-seated, hellfire-inducing rage I’m talking about. My one goal in life is to outlive Donald Trump and throw a pizza party when he finally kicks the bucket—and that isn’t hyperbole in the slightest. If I have to, I will fight off Death Incarnate with my bare fucking hands just to make sure I see Donald Trump buried in the ground before me.
He has no redeeming qualities. He has shown a propensity for enabling and installing fascism in the U.S. that threatens to tear this country apart—which is provable enough by how his followers are calling for “civil war” in the wake of the FBI search at MAL. If he were to get back into the Oval Office, he would use that power to seek revenge on anyone and everyone he believes wronged him—including those he deems “disloyal”, like the career civil servants who did everything they could to blunt his worst impulses and literally stop him from stealing the 2020 election. Nothing in this world would give me more pleasure than to check the news and read a headline that starts with the phrase “Donald Trump Dies”.
And considering how much you love Donald Trump, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t want me dead, you fucking cultist.
Re: Re: Re:8
As far as I am aware there has never in history been a case of boxes of paper picking up arms and defending themselves.
I unequivocally denounce the violation of law by any politician regardless of what party they belong to.
He’s not my god or king. He was the most likely choice to defeat Clinton. Then he was the most likely to defeat one of her cronies. Nothing less. Nothing more. Just because you’re fixated on a former president, doesn’t mean everyone is. I don’t really care.
Bit of a fixation on a single man. But you do you.
Somehow you invented some fictional premise with absolutely zero evidence. I don’t deny there are nutters out there that worship him. But you won’t find a single thing to contextually like me to any such behaviour.
and I don’t know what “news” your watching but I see nothing about going to war over the raid in either the Bing news feed of Google.
So either you’re reading some out there stuff to be finding it, or your search history is feeding such stories to you.
I don’t deny it could be out there somewhere. But I have tracking on an no interest in reading about some end of the world cave people who worship trump as a god, in the first place. Definitely not be adding that to my history.
Let me make something clear. I would not give two fucks about Trump. I do worry about you though. Your infatuation with is is definitely unhealthy.
Maybe, stop typing Trump into your search bar so much. You’d see less about him.
Re: Re: Re:9
I don’t go out of my way to think about Trump, but I have four years of trauma because of what that son of a bitch did in office
maybe you think I can snap my fingers and forget about all of it and think “gee, that Trump actually is a good guy, maybe I made a mistake in voting for Joe Biden” but I can’t fucking do that, motherfucker
Donald Trump represents American fascism and as soon as fascists get into power, queer people like me will be the first to be lined up against the fucking wall – just look at how fucking hard Trumpists are pushing the “groomer” shit and getting queer-friendly books removed from libraries
I cannot and will not cease hating Donald Trump until I am fucking dead because Donald Trump has done more to bring fascism into the light within the United States than any other political figure before him, and I cannot and will not allow myself to believe otherwise just because I think Democrats are a bunch of spineless shitheads
now please just fuck off forever before you give me a fucking anuerysm (which I’m sure you’d be happy to hear about regardless)
Re: Re: Re:10
I /am/ sorry. You clearly are suffering.
For whatever set of reasons, I’ve not felt any pushback in the real world. You have. And I won’t try to take any of that from you.
I’m the first to admit, as I’ve said in many a post, I’m extremely concerned about what has grown to take trump’s place. I have no doubt if left unchecked the far right would be just as quick to come after myself as they do you.
Ultimately I don’t care what people think of me. I’ve got thick enough skin that bigotry doesn’t bother me. But I’d it ever came to far-right power, they’d round me up just as fast as you.
What I’m trying to get across, to you, is don’t let that temper your values.
You can’t turn around and not look when someone you don’t like is the target of something you fight against. That’s the slope that turns away from equality. You, we!, can’t support two methods.
I won’t lie, pretend. For the briefest of moments I’d smile if this were Clinton. Because like you and Trump, I can point direct lines from her SOS period to suffering of those I know.
But that period wouldn’t last but seconds. This is the USA. And this is not how the system is designed to work. We don’t send military raids to recover from peaceful people. Or to recover them.
For all the claims of fascism: this is exactly what actual fascism looks like. Dozens of heavily armed people raiding a home for …paperwork.
Or an email server.
We don’t do that. We can’t do that.
Regardless of the target, we can’t accept this. Today it’s trump. Tomorrow? How long before such raids happen against abortion supporters?
Or in my case, as an active and vocal member, how long before they come after members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation?!!?
Will they raid my home for being pan? Force me into a rehabilitation program to learn how I offended little g god?
Or just shoot me. For either offence.
No, you must not turn away due to hatred. No matter how deep! Because that makes you no better that them.
Re: Re: Re:11
I’ve noticed that people who throw the biggest tantrums are usually the ones first to claim that they don’t care what other people think of them – see Chozen.
Re: Re: Re:12
I don’t care what anyone’s opinion is of myself as long as it’s accurate. I show extreme empathy for those I care about. And would give my life without thought for them.
And near complete apathy for the world as a whole. I simply don’t care.
And what ever slurs or names you want to call me for any of my lifestyle choices… whatever.
The only place I /do/ care is when it comes to not being factual.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a right ring cultist. They’re sick in the head. Trump is no god or king in my view. Just a man. A rather flawed one.
I won’t argue 16 because there was absolutely zero chance I’d support any way that led to Clinton as president. So whatever opposed her was my choice. ‘The enemy of my enemy’ and all that.
I was a BSan supporter.
I made a choice based on issues that mattered to me in 20. As of today none of those issues have been addressed.
Party, and a person’s choices outside of my personal concerns, don’t matter to me.
Trump stands for many things I disagree with. Religion, homophobia, etc. many of his supporters are blatantly racist. Militantly religious.
But… he checked far mor yes boxes I care about. And far less no boxes.
The alternative checked just one yes. And every big no. Beyond that, I doubted his ability to do anything in office on his own. Something even far left MSNBC generally doesn’t deny today. His brain is gone.
We all vote on issues important to us. Some of us are more accepting of baggage in our choices than others.
But I won’t stand to be called a Trump loyalist. I accepted the evidence when it was presented. He lost 20.
I still thing a full and complete recount should have been done.
And I’m absolutely 100% against faithless electors. I consider changing the vote you are supposed to submit with your own is actual treason.
But the man lost.
Re: Re: Re:13
Yet you voted for a man who has provably made a living out of lying—and you did so twice. Are you prepared to say you’ll do it a third time, presumably to spite the DNC for having the gall to put forth a candidate who isn’t a fascist?
Re: Re: Re:14
Oops, reply didn’t go where it was supposed to.
No, not a third time (Unless the only alternative is Clinton). I won’t vote for Biden either, but the chance of him running and winning if he does, is minimal.
Trump had problems, but his drive for things that mattered to me (border security, 2A, reduced international involvement, etc) made it worth the vote at the time.
Now, there’s too much of an extreme from the right to simply hand over power of all three branches. Much like the reason I voted for mostly democratically federally in 16, to keep power balanced.
The problem for me is I hate much of the Republican platform. However, I know exactly what the Dem tax plans would do to the country’s non-richest. How quickly middle and lower class people trying to climb up from the bottom would be decimated with takes on non-spendable non-accessible investments.
I know they don’t want to do anything about the hand guns used in 99% of crimes and only want to steal our rifles.
I know that their idea of saving the planet is immediate action that would decimate freedom of movement, and destroy the economy. When a balanced rollout of change is what should be done.
I know that they wish to keep the military-industrial complex rolling along in invasive involvement in other states’ business.
The democrats have a lot of good ideas, and stupid methods to reach them. We can’t afford social care for our own residents, and they want to hand money illegal immigrants?
The country is burning through debt and their idea is to spend by printing more money. They refuse to cut pointless spending.
And I’m extremely afraid of both parties absolute need to be involved in other states civil wars! We’re already supplying Ukraine, which is so low on the beacon of freedom list only communist dictatorships and religious autocracies fall lower.
Now they want to “protect” Taipei.
Both parties are absolutely determined to start WWIII!
And you can 100% expect non of them to actually go and fight.
Our economy is falling apart for taking a side in a civil war.
Like him or not: Trump had a tendency to do the old things he said he would. Wall. Tax cuts. Pull troops from foreign civil wars.
If you want fair nation wide internet, pass a bill and build the damn network.
Don’t talk about a wall; as Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush all did. As BIDEN did in the senate multiple times. Build the damn thing.
If you want police reform pass a bill and put it into practice!
If you want electric cars you start by passing a bill and building out a national system to support it.
I’m old enough to still be pissed at the stupidity of national recycling bills.
I have no problem with social businesses. National electric. National healthcare. National internet.
Just build the damn shite.
Trump was full of problems. But for better and more often worse, he did actually DO stuff. We need politicians that DO stuff.
Less talking more doing. Except for war, that is. Because both parties are too fond of war.
Re: Re: Re:15
I’ve got much more important shit to do, so I’mma do this bullet-points style to keep it as brief as I can.
Re: Re: Re:16
not really. The far right is just to scary. Last thing I want is a theocracy
That, I’m against. The filibuster is there to force discussion and compromise.
Which is fine. Though I’d rather have heavy corporate taxes and a flat income tax. Another discussion.
But taxing investments, which are not spendable, is targeting the entirety of the population.
Not to mention how you tax variable value items like stocks or crypto. Items of constantly changing value.
The problem isn’t taxing in the first place. It’s deductibles that primarily benefit the top 10 percent. But neither Dems or Reps are going to do anything about that because they BOTH benefit from those deductions.
Absolutely. But let’s be a bit realistic in what we call war weapons.
(Excluding highly regulated collectors and demonstrators)
No law abiding citizen has chain fed weapons. Those are weapons of war. No law abiding citizen has automatic fire weapons.
And no, I’m not going to condemn auto load. In most firearms the reload is nearly silent. Making big game hunting, food hunting, much easier. Bolt pull loading is noisy as hell. As is breach loading.
Rifles make up less than 1% of gun crimes. We need to reduce hand gun availability.
I’m also against concealed carry, as a supporter of open carry. Law abiding citizens have no need to hide a weapon. It should be visible.
Full stop. Though it’s not as massive and immediate as the doom-sayers plead. What we’ve done is equivalent to condensing 1000 years worth of change down to about 600-800 years.
The goal needs to be to slow that progression back to normal warming. As close as we can get to normal anyway.
Banning oil alone doesn’t do anyone any good in actual daily life. We need to build out electric at the federally funded level. We need a social charging solution.
And while dems crap on it, we need to further fund clean carbon recovery. Because it does have the potential to work.
You stop too short. And miss my point. We need to stop being the supplier to other wars as well. Sure, it’s my apathy, but sod off! Not our problem. Ukraine, Taipei, Central and Eastern Africa. South America.
Well, actually it partly is our problem as we, or an ally, have created the cause of each of these conflicts by toying with their political systems.
What happens “over there” needs to be left the “them” and not involve us.
Problem one. Neither party is willing to actually cut spending on other stuff. They just print more money or raise the debt limit. Or both.
But no, I wouldn’t suggest cutting military spending at the moment when both parties have a hard-on for other countries internal conflicts.
Cutting spending while we actively poke the dog with mildly poisonous sticks… bad idea.
I don’t see dems cutting spending anywhere. How do we pay for the many billions of increased spending they pump out every few months. Look at that for a moment. Both side refuse to cut.
I still haven’t changed my mind of taxing corporate wealth, over raising taxes on people. I also say taxes wouldn’t have to be raised if they just cut the wealthy-only deductions. As a barely middle-class with investments, I say fuck deductions for loses. Loses happen in investing. Be it $10 or $10mil. The solution is not to tax something that doesn’t have actual value. It’s already taxed when it’s converted to money. The solution is to patch the giant holes known as deductibles!
At this point, the UN has a duty to push back. Not the US.
I still don’t think any of this would have happened if we, the world, did something about Ukraine abusing a minority population living in three pockets removed from the majority.
Remember it wasn’t the Ruso-Ua population that fired the first shots. It was the Ua that attacked them.
The world would be a better place today if they just let go of that tiny bit of land.
Yes, I’m appalled at what has happened since the initial liberation of 2 of those pockets. Two stubborn self-righteous leaders are going to fuck the world to death over a few thousand people.
Neither side is the ‘good guy’ here. And now 41 million are suffering for it. What we shouldn’t do is get involved by supplying more weapons to the war.
Only by swing of the polls. The withdrawal was setup prior to the change of leadership.
I can’t say for a fact Trump would have done better on it. I don’t know. And neither do you.
But there is no doubt that by throwing out Trump’s approved plan, then totally ignoring all logical reason from military leaders, Biden created the biggest fuck up in military history.
I agree to an extent. There’s three issues with that focus though.
Public road transport only work in an near cities.
Public transport does nothing for those in that need out, or those out that need in. A car, or train, or private commercial transportation is still needed.
You assume people will trust their safety to PT. Until cities get crime under control there isn’t much of a will for those with other means.
Ah, that list again. Which I’ve line-itemed to you more than once.
I see about 50/50 what I think is good in that list with bad. Some of the bad is really, really, bad. But from a world view far from atrocious.
And as for paperwork. Well, even CNN is being extremely cautious in how it reports. And they (most of the talent) hate trump as much as you. Early reports say the AG may be flat out wrong. While some on the far right say he is wrong, knew it, and did it anyway: I just consider the AG another puppet doing as he is directed. There’s little doubt the big sow of red/blues was a political statement. When, again, a pair of US Marshals could have gone and picked this stuff up. That said:
If true, he should be tried.
If not, this is yet another politically motivated fuck up attempted gotcha
Re: Re: Re:13
Ah. A whackjob.
Risking sounding like praise, an inventive nut. But still a nut. nail gun? That’s not common. Was he trying to recreate The German Nail Gun Massacre (1985 Futuristic Releasing)?
Though there’s more on the right than left, all parties have nuts. Say, like spiking trees so that loggers get maimed or killed. Or “protesting” with weapons at the home of SCOTUS Justices. Or shooting abortion Drs.
There’s crazies out there.
Re: Re: Re:11
I’m in a better headspace today than I was 24 hours ago. Since I don’t want to overly ruin that, I am going to choose my words carefully and make this somewhat shorter than one of my usual replies to you by way of listing off some bullet points.
Re: Re: Re:12
If Donald Trump broke the law,
he must go to jail
Re: Re: Re:13
🎉 🎉 🎉 FUCKIN’ FINALLY! 🎉 🎉 🎉
Re: Re: Re:14
Glad you’re happy.
But I don’t care who the politician is. They must all be held to the same standard of the law.
All too often we get mini-Nixons who think they are above the law.
Cases must be heard. Evidence weighed. And a result reached. Based on the evidence.
So now that I gave you the exact line you wanted, which I fully stand by, I return to: all politicians. That is inclusive of Trump.
Re: Re: Re:12
I have consistently held the same opinion posting here regarding such ‘raids’ like this. You don’t send a battalion of heavily armed shock troopers to deal with non-violent unarmed people.
I have, issues, with the basic armament being fully automatic high power rifles. Such weapons make sense when going after dug in and well armed at a drop house. Or sales location. Not a suicide call, or a box of papers, or 99% of police calls.
I differ in that I don’t call for disarmament. I call for reasonable firepower for the call.
And, more importantly, quality training.
The most whacked out apocalyptic nutter doesn’t mow down a dozen civilians. Yet a cop did.
There’s a serious training problem when it takes 4 20 round clips to get a suspect under control. I can shoot the stem off an apple at 50 yards with a 45cb. It takes a cop 80 rounds to not hit a suspect directly?
Again, what kind of shite training has you mow down a dozen civilians?
And there is my problem, as a base, for such ‘raids’
It’s clear to me that the officers here on the ground realised the method was crap end wrong by how well they managed the situation. Meaning the problem is higher up the chain here. And commend them for exemplary work given how easily this could have been another mess.
Re: Re: Re:13
You don’t send a battalion of heavily armed shock troopers to deal with non-violent unarmed people.
Trump has a legal right to own firearms, is provably violent in his speech if not his actions, and wasn’t there to be “dealt with”. Furthermore, if the FBI were heavily armed, it would been to prevent at Mar-a-Lago the kind of event that went down at the FBI field office in Ohio.
*The most whacked out apocalyptic nutter doesn’t mow down a dozen civilians.
Robb Elementary School shooting, 2017 London Bridge attack. How many more shall I put on the list?
Re: Re: Re:13
Is that what actually happened, or did you make it up? I haven’t heard any details of how the raid was actually conducted.
Re: Re: Re:13
I have issues with the basic armament being fully automatic high power rifles.
So you don’t like armed forces and SWAT teams, noted. But what has that to do with FBI special agents?
Re: Re: Re:9
Somehow you invented some fictional premise with absolutely zero evidence.
It wouldn’t be the first time, TBH.
Re: Re: Re:9
I unequivocally denounce the violation of law by any politician regardless of what party they belong to.
Get ready to denounce Trump, then.
He’s not my god or king. He was the most likely choice to defeat Clinton. Then he was the most likely to defeat one of her cronies.
Only after Trump’s best friend Vladimir illegally got involved in the election.
Re: Re: Re:10
Drunk off my arse
Ohkay. Put up or shut up and move one.
Site evidence that Russians physically changed votes in 2016.
I don’t give a fuck about party. I always have and always will vote on the the platform that will check off 6 of my top ten concerns, or if failing 6!the majority of them.
You can link to investigations all you wantY those have been found on since 2016. Nobody has yet proven guilt beyond all reasonable doubt
If he’s guilt. Fuck him.
If not, fuck the witch hunt.
Here’s where o differ from Minke. Mike has problems with CR and Patient trolls. I’m against misusing courts in general.
The dude from truths. I can’t remember his name. Fuck him.
The Karen bytch in NY over food stamps. Fuck her. Trump’s election issues. Fuck him.
The claims of “fraudulent electors” initial had my interest. But since non of the debated seats were were non-committed-fuck-offs… I offer no supporting.
Electors represent
Unfaithful electors commit treason against the us.
Yet I see only two cases
Of treasonous fuck-Tard’s in 2020.
Neither of which would change the election.
And the far right cum stains
Are welcome to face off with me in public so I can beat them senseless.
Let’s for a final go:
Make this clear.
Sending a large battalion sized force to recover, what as of 8/14 appear to be legally held documentation, my ducking word. This is crazy!
I don’t care about the target.
I absolutely care about the excessive force.
I bring In less than $20k per year. The ram total less than $75. Nearly all retirement/ssa oand investment interest
The progressive idea of taxing no -accessible, non-transferable “wealth” is a crock
Plans will tax the purchase as a sales tax. Tax the holdings as a gains tax. And the. Tax the sale as income!
I hold lite coin. I was a literal billionaire for a fraction of a second.
If the Dem plan were in effect I’d have to pay taxes on a billion + for that 1 100th of a second. Despite my ltc portfolio being under $100 tota!
What fair logic is there in paying on something that I never had access to.
My biggest problem with dems it the constant drive to steal money that doesn’t actually exist.
Taking mine ;39’ rich people whose so-called wealth is nothing more than Aline item is NOT the way to pa ;94 progress or balance anything.
Life foreign aid for wars we have no business in.
Let’s quit funding aid to earring countries. Let’s stop sending billions to countries who commit genocide againztheir own people.
Again, fuck the trump man. I don’t care. It was a border wall palm, keeping my ability to eat food of my choice that I lull myself, and not spending tax funds to support other countries.
As I’ve said before fuck the rest of the world. We need to, must, return to 1937 and spend our money on IS.
Re: Re: Re:11
Site evidence that Russians physically changed votes in 2016.
First off, the word is ‘cite’, okay? Secondly, I never made the claim that Russian interests physically changed votes, so don’t come at me with that strawman. I only said that the Russians got involved in the 2016 election, which is a broad term that does not have to include changing votes. And since I’ve now deconstructed your strawman, it’s on you to prove that the Russians didn’t interfere in the 2016 elections in any way whatsoever, disingenuous troll.
Re: Re: Re:12
I wouldn’t even try to show such. Like every modernist country, Russia filled the internet with propaganda. The US does the same when we’re not actually physically getting involved in other countries’ elections.
It’s normal international relations. It just is always that way.
Re: Re: Re:13
Like every modernist country, Russia filled the internet with propaganda.
And unlike every other modernist country, Russia filled the Internet with propaganda favoring one of the two candidates in another nation’s presidential election. Way to prove Autie’s point. You can’t even admit that Russia swayed the 2016 vote in favor of Trump, and Trump himself might have encouraged them to do so.
Re: Re: Re:14
And unlike every other modernist country, Russia filled the Internet with propaganda favoring one
If you honestly believe the US, UL, China, etc, are not doing exact that… what an idyllic world you live in.
Not to mention when we simple depose and/or assassinate a state’s leader.
Re: Re: Re:15
FYI, doubling down instead of debating the points raised as you just did is the SOP of trolls. Just so you know, troll.
Re: Re: Re:15
And yourwhataboutism defeats the points raised how? Howvery like a troll.
Re: Re: Re:16
If someone is too stupid to do their own research on who they vote for and just go by what some semi-anonymous drip on social media says….
No, I have absolutely zero issue with anyone posting whatever crap they want. That’s freedom.
And if you are implying that America is so stupid it can’t sort out things via research, then … I don’t doubt it with teach-the-test and mega curves and nobody fails.
But since nobody can show any actual evidence of anything regarding Russia,
What you define as whataboutism, so what. I say I have no issue with propaganda. Mainly because it’s protected in this country, freedom of speech.
Re: Re: Re:17
But since nobody can show any actual evidence of anything regarding Russia…
I understand that ignorance is your best friend and I sympathise, I really do, but there’s absolutely no excuse for it, so here’s a link that will help you better than burying your head in the sand will.
Re: Re: Re:14
They didn’t have any effect on me. Nothing any country could, or did, produce would change the fact that clinton was the Dem candidate.
Mind showing how Russia changed that?
I don’t have any evidence they did anything differently than the CIA does in other countries. I don’t even know what they supposedly produced to be making any form of “influence”.
As far as I know, no Russian tv adverts were run. No Russian news adverts were printed.
I’ve seen absolutely zero evidence of any form of public propaganda even remotely comparable to what our country pumps out. If at all.
But it wouldn’t surprise me if they did. We’ve been doing that since 1946.
Re: Re: Re:15
They didn’t have any effect on me.
So you think acts shouldn’t win America’s Got Talent unless you personally voted for them? Because that’s the flipside of what you’ve just implied, troll.
Re: Re: Re:16
Well, that would definitely be ideal. But that’s not remotely equivalent to what I said.
First of all, nobody has produced any evidence at all on exactly what Russia is said to have done
. So I can only go on the basis of the most extreme possibility that doesn’t require evidence. That is, Russian partisans posted crap to the crap piles of social media.
So either you’re too stupid to look something up, or to sheeple to make your own decisions and just did what your “friends” upvoted. Sadly, both probably covers the majority of social media users.
That’s a whole lot less invasive than what the US does which starts with leaflets and hand outs and ends with shooting people in the head or arming rebels or the like.
Re: Re: Re:15
You know what I find hilarious about all this? You claim to have decades of experience in computing, but in this thread you show more evidence of not being able to do something as simple as using a search engine. Lol!
Re: Re: Re:16
Lostcauae shares that in common with “Anonymous Attorney”
Re: Re: Re:9
… says the one concocting baseless fantasies in which FBI agents and hillary are the ones guilty of crimes.
Re: Re: Re:10
Clinton comment crimes and no logicazpersoudenys that.
I don’t know if her server reached the level of treason… but criminal is not debatable.
As for the FBI.
Law enforcement in gen
This is extreme, unwarranted, abuse of power.
And. I reasonabl person would stand for tit.
Re: Re: Re:11
Start commenting on your PC, dude.
Re: Re: Re:11
Actually, since the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails was dropped due to the electoral fraud committed on Trump’s behalf, we’ll never know whether or not she would have been found guilty in a court of law. Something else for which you can thank your godking.
Re: Re: Re:7
Uh, I don’t have any kids. Wtf are you talking about. And why would you even imply such a thing?!!?
Because “one of your boys” always equals “one of your sons”, right? Stephen was actually talking about Ricky Schiffer.
Re: Re: Re:8
Who’s that?
Re: Re: Re:9
Ricky Shiffer was a Trumpist who was apparently pissed off about the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago—to the point where he tried to shoot up an FBI field office in Ohio. He was eventually shot dead after a standoff with law enforcement.
A Trump supporter trying to commit violence and property destruction aimed at the federal government because he was both pissed off at something that negatively affected his precious (former) president and possibly emboldened to act thanks to heated rhetoric from right-wing pundits, Trump-supporting Republicans, and everyday conservative jackoffs? I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything like that before~.
(But I bet it won’t be the last time we see something like this…especially with the midterms and 2024 right around the corner.)
Re: Re:
Not sorry.
Just, too libertarian to ignore this.
The smacks of the same Obama era show-raid on Kim Dotcom! What’s not funny is how many of the same people were involved in the planning behind the scenes.
Nor the fact that the chain of orders reaches directly to, Biden! In both cases.
Show me in what world an armed contingent of FBI agents is required to “recover” a few boxes of documents. That they didn’t even officially attempt to officially ask for before going all Normandy.
Here’s something for you to think on: there’s just as much Wtf reaction chatter on The Libertarian as there is in republican circles. As well as CNN.
This was law enforcement stupidity on grand display. And mark my words, here and now, this is going to backfire on the old-party Dems.
And it’s gonna take quite a few fake republicans down with them.
Revisit my outrage when the FBI did the same thing for a man with a fake FBI badge and a few unloaded rifles. Shite like this needs non-partisan anger.
Re: Re: Re: I'm going to regret stepping into this slapfight.
…but with that said, I have One Simple Question for you.
Yes or no: If Donald Trump violated the law by holding on to those documents the FBI seized, should he be held accountable for that violation under the U.S. criminal legal system?
Re: Re: Re:2
if —yes!
And if, then the same punishment should also immediately be applied to Clinton. Whose actions went far beyond holding classified materials. Including unlawful transmission.
Here’s the difference between myself and the anti-law-enforcement crowd. I say string up the FBI and those involved to. Don’t let a criminal walk over a bad ‘stop’ when the resulting evidence is clear. The criminal is still a criminal. Despite the enforcement misconduct.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes or no: Can you offer proof of any form of “misconduct” on the part of the FBI or the Department of Justice in re: the seizure of documents from Mar-A-Lago, other than the fact of the seizure itself (which was performed with the full knowledge of Trump and his legal representation and pursuant to the laws that govern such seizures)?
Re: Re: Re:4
Beyond the bizarre level of misuse of officers?
Yes.
Multiple reports from both NYT and Fox state that they opened his safe. Opening a locked safe, just like a locked cell phone, requires a separate warrant. The warrant issued was recovery of documents that may, or may not, have been healed in violation of the law.
Forget bricks. Don’t pretend you wouldn’t be crapping out paving stones if this had happened to a Democrat . Because I would be!
Re: Re: Re:5
Healed —held
Re: Re: Re:5
And where, dear asshole, might someone store documents they believe are important or sensitive or even classified?
Well, I imagine they might store them IN A FUCKING SAFE.
Christ, your ignorance is going to literally explode my brain…
Re: Re: Re:6
The contents of a safe when locked are not covered. You don’t open it, you seize it. Then get a separate warrant to open it.
If you can’t seize it (due to size) you contact the judge and get a second warrant to do so on site.
Even NPR and Slate have said similar.
Again… just like a phone.
Just like not being able to force open a locked glove box on a traffic stop. Or how they have no right to open an urn to search. Such things require a further permission.
Re: Re: Re:7
As explained in another comment: The feds got a warrant to search physical locations for physical documents, and a safe is a physical location. Unlike plain-view searches, a warrant can authorize (and in this case did authorize) searches of physical locations that would not qualify under the limits of plain-view searches.
This could all have been prevented, by the way, if Trump had handed over all the boxes of documents when he was first asked to hand them over. Your godking brought this on himself.
Re: Re: Re:8
Access to the internals of a safe without a warrant specifically stating access to a safe is not set in caselaw. Courts have gone both ways.
And, I can’t say for sure, but it appears this is a different set of documents from a few months back.
You are also assuming without evidence that these documents should not be in his hands or that anyone other than Trump has a legal right to them.
That much, is not yet verified.
If he’s wrong, then he’s wrong. And the courts should deal with that. If he’s right, he’s right.
While you focus on documents and Trump: I’ll focus on yet another act of military law enforcement.
Re: Re: Re:9
Access to the internals of a safe without a warrant specifically stating access to a safe is not set in caselaw.
It doesn’t have to be, it’s set in the statutes governing search warrants.
Re: Re: Re:7
“Such things require a further permission.
It’s called a search warrant numbnuts.
Re: Re: Re:8
What’s a “search warrant numbnuts” when it’s at home?
Re: Re: Re:5
That’s not actually how it works. They were to search any physical location within the house for physical documents. Opening a locked safe within the home to search for those documents is more akin to opening a locked room within the home (at least as long as the safe doesn’t leave the house, and it appears they did, in fact, open the safe without removing it from the house) than unlocking a locked cell phone.
They would need a warrant (though it could be included in the same warrant) that says to search any electronic devices (including cell phones) for electronic documents in order to unlock a locked smartphone, but that’s because it’s a search for something else entirely and (often) such a search would need to be done after first seizing the device so that the requested documents could be seized. In this case, they’re searching for physical documents within a specified location. That they might have to search within other physical objects located within that specified location to find the targeted documents is irrelevant.
A better analogy would be a warrant to search a computer for certain electronic documents, and a certain folder stored on that computer is password-protected beyond the existing protection to the computer’s desktop and might contain the targeted documents. The warrant doesn’t have to specify that the police can search password-protected folders on the computer they were specifically authorized to search for the police to—consistent with the 4th Amendment—be permitted to search that folder for the targeted documents. If the warrant permits search of the computer, anything stored within the computer is fair game regardless of the fact that some parts may have additional layers of protection so long as it is plausible that at least one target for seizure (as specified by the warrant) could plausibly be found there. Similarly, a warrant to search a house for something necessarily authorizes a search of all locations and objects within the house that could reasonably hold targets to be seized even if some of those places and things to search may have additional protection beyond that of the house as a whole. You don’t specify which folders on a computer can be searched, you don’t specify which rooms of a house can be searched (outside of certain situations), and you don’t specify whether or not safes within the house can be searched. As far as the warrant is concerned, there is no difference between unlocking a safe and opening a desk drawer (locked or unlocked) as part of a search under a warrant so long as one or more targets for the search under that warrant could reasonably be found there and the safe/desk drawer is found and opened within the location specified in the warrant.
(Also, a warrant isn’t confined by the plain-view doctrine, which only governs searches or observations of things beyond or without a warrant.)
Re: Re: Re:6
See my reply just above.
The safe, if true, is extremely concerning if not directly pointed out.
Everything about this is so upside down in my view. It really does strike me like the fake-badge raid. And Dotcom.
The right of access via warrants is very limited, as it should be.
Even if this slips through as permissible, it shouldn’t be. Case record is full of safe searches going either way. But we wouldn’t even be discussing it if they had asked for a further warrant for access.
In fact didn’t we just all discuss a cop sticking his hand in the OPEN hole of a car door?
I admit my libertarian views cloud my perception on what is and what should be permissible. But if you want access to a safe you get a warrant to access the safe.
Re: Re: Re:7
And if the warrant specified that the feds could search the entire building, opening a locked safe—a place one might reasonably think to store sensitive documents—to search for said documents would be both legal and reasonable. I don’t see how it wouldn’t be unless you can come up with an argument more substantive than “BuT i ThInK iT sHoUlD bE!!!1!”.
Re: Re: Re:7
The right of access via warrants is very limited, as it should be.
Which is why they’re often broadly written. You were saying?
Re: Re: Re:8
Apparently, from rumour, the warrant is now public. I’ll find out Monday feomNYT or WFLD or WYFD if The Libertarian doesn’t cover it first
The safe is the lesser issue over all. M the primary concer is a militant raid against the property of someone with no history of violence against US law enforcement.
Re: Re: Re:9
The primary concern is a militant raid against the property of someone with no history of violence against US law enforcement.
The history’s right here, Trump apologist. You were saying?
Re: Re: Re:10
Trump didn’t storm the capital. A large gathering of angry, but generally peaceful, protestors didn’t storm the capital.
A small group of a few dozen fuck-off thugs stormed the capital.
They should be, and are being, tried.
A person is solely responsible for their own actions. Nobody held up a gun to them and said March. They weren’t under duress. They made a stupid decision and are being and should be held responsible for what they themselves did of their own volition.
Re: Re: Re:11
Trump didn’t storm the capital.
Just as the person that hired an assassin didn’t fire the fatal shot. I fail to see the difference here, and I know the fault isn’t mine.
Re: Re: Re:12
Given that Trump declared “peaceful”.
That he didn’t once state to break the law… that’s the difference. He didn’t hire the group that is at issue. He didn’t pay them. He didn’t promise anything in exchange. And he quickly condemned them afterwards.
Re: Re: Re:13
You are aware that the Capitol Police had already been attacked while Trump was still speaking at the rally, right? The whole “stay peaceful” tweet came loong after the mob had overwhelmed the Police and breached the Capitolium because he was forced to say something.
Quickly?? That’s some fine history revisionism you are practicing there. It took hours for people near Trump to barely convince him to ask the mob to leave, and his condemnation was “We love you, you’re very special”. The low IQ mob had hours to ransack offices, shit on the floor and steal little mementos to prove that they all should be put in jail. It took a fucking week for Trump to actually put out something akin to a condemnation, mostly because many of the Republicans senators said at the time that he was responsible for the mob.
Fuck you, you’re just another fascist enabler who happily tries to rewrite one of the most shameful episodes in US democracy.
Re: Re: Re:7
I don’t think I have a problem with it. I don’t have a problem with them opening a locked room without a separate warrant for that specific room, so I also have no problem with them opening a locked safe. Maybe some courts disagree with this (though you apparently concede that others agree with it), but under my understanding of the 4th Amendment, I don’t see any problem here.
This is nothing like the Kim Dotcom raid, where the entire thing stunk and Kim was given no opportunity to comply of his own volition. And I see nothing akin to any sort of false badge raid. This is exactly how I’d want a search to be carried out, and I see no problems with either the warrant or the underlying reason for the warrant.
Furthermore, you pointed to this as evidence that this was highly problematic. If that’s your best evidence—something in which people could disagree on—then that’s not a great sign for your argument.
Re: Re: Re:5
You could have just ansered “no” and saved yourself the unnecessary typing.
Re: Re: Re:6
Do you really consider the entirety of what transpired, the volume of heavily armed officers, appropriate?
Forget who it was! A) a non-violent individual with no history of physical resistance to law enforcement
Who wasn’t even at the site.
How is such a deployment justified?!!
Re: Re: Re:7 You're right bro
“Do you really consider the entirety of what transpired, the volume of heavily armed officers, appropriate?
For nuclear secrets, probably a bit light on the firepower.
Re: Re: Re:7
You ask that in a country where the cops have been known to use a swat team to serve a parking ticket?
Re: Re: Re:7
Forget who it was! A) a non-violent individual with no history of physical resistance to law enforcement.
The police officers injured during the events on the 6th of January last year would very much beg to differ, I’m sure.
Who wasn’t even at the site.
And? Trump had the option to be there since he’d been informed of the search. Should the FBI have held back just because he declined to be present? If every LEA had to wait for alleged offenders to be present for all of their searches, there’d be no crime resolution, so forget prevention.
Re: Re: Re:8
You intentionally took ‘not there’ out of context. The question, again, in the action was what need was there for such a large raid. Other than a grand display for news casters.?!
Come next year when a few of the far right republicans pull such stunts against dems, when you complain, I’ll be happy to link back to this article.
Because I don’t care about the politics of it. Such actions are flat out wrong.
Re: Re: Re:9
You know, I’ve had clients with intellectual disability can work this out better than you. TD;DT: It’s to do with proportionality and reasonableness. Mar-a-Lago’s the second largest mansion in the state of Florida, and the FBI had two options; they could go in with a small team, take over a day to conduct the search, and leave the place in a mess, or they could go in with a large team, conduct the search in a couple of hours, and have time to tidy up as they go. Which do you think was the better option when your godking’s palace was searched?
Re: Re: Re:5
Opening a locked safe, just like a locked cell phone, requires a separate warrant.
Er, no it doesn’t. The fact is, if the search warrant was validly obtained, reasonably served, and indeed includes “documents” as items to be seized, then the police serving the warrant can search anywhere that documents may be reasonably stored – including a locked safe. If a warrant specifically limits the areas of the building to be searched, “the master bedroom”, for example, then a safe in the study requires a separate warrant, but if the warrant covered the entire property, then it covered every physical structure in that property, including safes.
Re: Re: Re:3
So ypu admit you want to attack one you irrationally hate with false chaeges even as you lie to defend one you irrationally support, got it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’m not supporting trump here. At all. If he is holding documents he should not have, he should be tried and convicted.
Politicians shouldn’t be above the law. Period. I don’t care what party you’re part of.
As for cops and stops, the comment is self explanatory. If the cops break the law they should be convicted.
What I disagree with is allowing the criminal target off completely because of it.
That includes trump here. If, as case history is not in agreement, the safe opening is considered unconstitutional, and inside the safe is items of criminal holding, he should still be tried for the holding. and those involved in the opening should be tried for the constitutional violation.
No one should be above the law.
Re: Re: Re:5 Tell me you're a magaT without telling me you're a magaT
“I’m not supporting trump here. At all.”
Have you read literally anything you’ve shat out in this thread bro?
Re: Re: Re:6
Should’ve told Lodos that one of Trump’s kids called the police to arrest someone at a school because someone Trump’s grandkid was bullying said something nasty about Trump’s grandkid. At that point Lodos will absolutely shit his pants with the oncoming tantrum.
Re: Re: Re:7
If true, that’s fucked up. A total abuse of power.
but coward appears to think I care about what the Trump family is doing or how they feel. I don’t.
Wait, what are the cops actually supposed to do?
Bullies suck. They pull this kind of fuckupery.
What do you expect me to say to this. I don’t support bullying and I don’t support abusing the police process. Fucked ip spoiled brat in my book.
Re: Re: Re:8
*…but coward appears to think…*
TBH, you don’t appear to be thinking at all. BTW, if you don’t like bullying, then prove it by no longer calling others “coward”. If someone hasn’t posted under a name, then “AC” is the appropriate moniker.
Re: Re: Re:8
This comment thread indicates otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:9
Think about the school’s position. What would happen if the child went back to class and got the crap beat out of her?
Or if she stood up to and, as often happens, beat up the bully?
And if a further incident happens the school is then at fault for not removing the girl from the situation in the first place.
A case could be made up to criminal negligence or criminal endangerment
Such situations are caused not because of police involvement but because we don’t have strong anti-bully laws.
Bullying is, even at that age, still often criminal level intimidation. Threats of, and actual, violence.
But they wiggle their slimy little shells of existence through the loopholes.
Focusing on the “over reaction” of cops and the school ignores the real problem in such situations as this
Re: Re: Re:10
“We’re arresting and handcuffing you at the request of the family whose daughter bullied you for your own good” is the excuse you have? Oh, right. Because your biggest fear is everyone else’s schooling experience getting inconvenienced, not the fact that someone got bullied.
And with the exact same excuses almost a year later, you prove yourself to be a basic, predictable, authoritarian-fellating simp.
Re: Re: Re:
Show me in what world an armed contingent of FBI agents is required to “recover” a few boxes of documents.
I’ll do you one better: show me in what world FBI agents are expected to be unarmed.
Re: Re: Re:2
Well, considering investigation is part of their name…?
Re: Re: Re:3
Investigation is also part of the police’s job. Do you think they should be unarmed, too?
Re: Re: Re:4
Most people, here, havmysf included , have a problem with the basic response to all law being armed militant aggression.
Re: Re: Re:5
If you think that police armed with Glock 9mm pistols constitute a military force, then you didn’t want to be in the UK in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing when there were AFOs armed with Heckler & Koch MP5 semi-automatic rifles in the main public transport hubs of every city.
Re: Re: Re:6
Where have you been? We’re talking AR-15s, M-16s, M4s, P-90s. Both long and short length shotguns.
That’s just the normal stuff. We won’t get into what SWAT and SRTs arm up with.
Re: Re: Re:7
Where have you been?
One could ask you the same question. I was on vacation in Boston in June and July of 2017, and I saw plenty of police officers armed with H&K MP5s at the railway station there. I recognised the rifles instantly from having fired them during my time in the National Guard before I left to go to law school, so Naughty Autie’s right.
Re: Re: Re:8
That was my point. It’s nothing uncommon here. In the US.
Re: Re: Re:9
I’ve never seen the police officers in Boston, Massachussetts armed with anything more heavy duty than Glock 9mm pistols, but the police in Boston, Lincolnshire were indeed armed with semi-automatic rifles in 2017, just as Attorney said. You know, it’d be a lot easier to take you seriously if you weren’t so bloody ignorant.
Re: Re: Re:9
I’ve never seen the police officers in Boston, Massachussetts armed with anything more heavy duty than Glock 9mm pistols, but the police in Boston, Lincolnshire were indeed armed with semi-automatic rifles in 2017, just as Attorney said. You know, it’d be a lot easier to take you seriously if you weren’t so bloody ignorant.
Re: Re: Re:5
Except when it’s at the capitol.
Re: Re: Re:5
To quote myself
“For nuclear secrets, probably a bit light on the firepower.”
Re: Re: Re:6
Funny. So far it looks like the records were mostly if not completely declassified. And not nuclear secrets.
Re: Re: Re:7
Where are you getting that information?
Re: Re: Re:8
Trump & Co. have been spinning up a rapid array of mutually-comtradicting lies about the classified secrets he stole.
Re: Re: Re:9
Like anyone whose name doesn’t start with cli and end with ton… I reserve judgement until evidence is provided.
Re: Re: Re:8
Business week, which states that the initial reports’ on the documents show they are “previously declassified” or “presidential”.
I don’t know what the latter actually means…
But I refuse to make judgement until the evidence is shown. Or CDPAN, the WSJ shows otherwise with reference.
Re: Re: Re:9
The neat thing is, it doesn’t matter if they were classified, because the search warrant doesn’t mention any laws having to do with classified documents.
Re:
As someone who isn’t American, but where Trump’s petty bullshit and lack of foresight have handed my home region (Southeast Asia) to Xi Jinping and China:
Fuck Trump and everything he did.
I hope he gets charged with aiding sedition, at least. And that the “mishandling of official records” leads to something more damning.
Re: You should stick to just being an asshole cause you're a shit troll
“You just made him a martyr.”
If only…
Re: Re:
You can’t be a martyr unless you are dead but so far he hasn’t keeled over while choking on a cheeseburger.
Re: Re: Re:
You can’t be a martyr unless you are dead…
I think that was AC’s point.
War? Wtf is wrong with these people
And now I see far right armed protests. Uh
Wtf is wrong with these people.
The raid, over the top as it was, was legal. They had a warrant. They served the warrant.
Wtf are they protesting?!!?
Carrying out their duties as law enforcement?
For the moment the protesters look to be within the limits of the law but damn then if they step over it. Preferably with a bit of restraint and precision. We don’t need more of them piping up over an unrestrained action.
Re: Far too late to disown them now
“And now I see far right armed protests. Uh
Wtf is wrong with these people.”
They your peeps bro.
Re: Re:
s? I highly doubt that. The only two groups that show up armed at law enforcement offices is left wing anarchists and far right theocrats.
I belong to neither.
Re: Re: Re:
Not the former, but a look back at your post history indicates a strong trend of you carrying the water of the latter. Frequently.