Tippaporn

There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." If you want to split hairs go ahead. Republic for short.

On a case by case basis, yes. But not across the board. That's when a DA takes it upon himself or herself to thumb his or her nose at the legislature which passed the laws the DA is sworn to uphold but then refuses to enforce.

I'll give you kudos for your passionate beliefs. "45 had ZERO right to the docs he kept." You have no way of knowing that with the certainty you express. That much is obvious to anyone who is looking at this objectively. "His counsel/he LIED in a signed affadavit in June claiming they had returned everything. That is intent to deceive and can form the basis for charging him with "conspiracy to commit espionage". Again, you have zero personal knowledge of all of the details regarding whatever Trump transferred back or any of the disputes and talks between Trump and government agencies in the whole. What you do have so far is a one-sided story put out by a media who has clearly shown they are propagandists. And the narrative fits like a glove on your Trumpian bias. The U.S. is not a democracy. It's a Republic. That you get this elemental fact wrong suggests you may be wrong about much else.

In this day and age where DAs decide what laws they will enforce or not I don't doubt you, ThailandRyan. That America is descending into chaos is not an argument I would take the opposing side on. Still, it would be interesting to know where O.R. Releases are taking place in the country. My assumption, and I could be wrong, is that it's in major urban areas. I give you credit here.

Now I know what Trump feels like.

You don't have to be an American, like me, to recognise accomplishments. Or corruption.

A few here responded jovially to your post so I guess they love their Democrat corruption.

Substance over form. He gets an A+.

How did you get inside my head to write that? Bravo, mate!

Speculating on the honesty of an FBI director is a habit of Trump's. That alone undermines his credibility. You're an Aussie. So you can be forgiven for not knowing FBI history. J. Edgar Hoover was as honest a FBI Director as they come. Thanks for the injection of some much needed humour in this thread. Back to being serious. You suggest that questioning authority undermines one's credibility. In actuality the reverse is true. Those who slavishly follow authoritarians have lost all credibility. And credibility may be the least of the noble virtues one contemptuously kicks to the gutter. I'm fine with criticizing authority, honestly. But not at the defense of the obvious perpetrator and without a shred if evidence. That's just deflecting and muck raking. Wait, that's not what you said. Which was that anyone who questions the honesty of an FBI Director has lost credibility for the shear act of questioning. So now you say you're fine with questioning an FBI Director . . . honestly, in fact. So which is it? Okay? Not okay? Depends on which way the wind blows? Better, depends on how it suits my political viewpoints. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Quote me or shut up. Gladly.

You would be behind bars though. I just stumbled upon your simple, succinct, yet deadly accurate reply.

Wait, that's not what you said. Which was that anyone who questions the honesty of an FBI Director has lost credibility for the shear act of questioning. So now you say you're fine with questioning an FBI Director . . . honestly, in fact. So which is it? Okay? Not okay? Depends on which way the wind blows? Better, depends on how it suits my political viewpoints.

You're an Aussie. So you can be forgiven for not knowing FBI history. J. Edgar Hoover was as honest a FBI Director as they come. Thanks for the injection of some much needed humour in this thread. Back to being serious. You suggest that questioning authority undermines one's credibility. In actuality the reverse is true. Those who slavishly follow authoritarians have lost all credibility. And credibility may be the least of the noble virtues one contemptuously kicks to the gutter.

How many Russia, Russia, Russia articles did these outlets print which were ultimately proven false? WaPo and the NYT are two iconic U.S. newspapers who have sadly soiled their credibility to an unreconcilable point. To anyone who still maintains a shred of objectivity these two once proud pillars of the fourth estate have ignobly become nothing more than Democrat activist propaganda arms. As you reject my sources so I reject yours. But with much more good reason.

But most every leftist here has been saying regarding the negotiations Trump was having that it's all cut and dried. What's there to negotiate? Trump retained classified documents which he was not legally allowed to have. Period. End of story. If that's true then they have enough hard evidence to arrest him this very moment. Isn't it typical for law enforcement to make arrests as soon they have the smoking gun? What more would they be waiting for?

Here are a couple of quotes from this far, far leftist leaning article: “The reason this smells so bad is that there is all sorts of evidence he did not receive this on the merits.” What?!?!?!?!?! When the exact same point was made about Hunter's merits for gaining his lucrative position at Burisma the left made never ending implausible excuses. And now they're turning the tables thinking we're brain dead idiots with faulty memories? "Back in April, The New York Times reported that Jared Kushner’s four years of Saudi ass-kissing and murder-excusing had paid off in the form of a $2 billion investment from the kingdom‘s sovereign wealth fund to his newly formed private equity firm." ozimoron, tell me that it's not true that you suck up every word this far left leaning liberal writes as gospel? The above is the first sentence of the first paragraph in the article. And you expect objectivity from this writer? Worse, you expect me to treat this as a serious, objective piece of faux journalism? Put up some proof, not just a leftist hit job.

Provide links or it's not admissible. I second that. Do provide links, Bkk Brian. When asked you have to respond. Put up on that outrageous unsubstantiated claim.

You make all sorts of assumptions, continue to do so, and refuse to acknowledge any your assumptions as such. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of nonsense.

Okay, now let's pretend that there's never been a single negotiation with any FPOTUS before in the entirety of U.S. history. And let's pretend, too, that the presumption that Trump was illegally in possession of what he had is not a presumption but fact. And let's pretend that no further future information of any specificity about anything will have any bearing on the matter. And let's pretend that Trump didn't have the ability to declassify what he had in his possession. And let's pretend further to forget that no enforcement mechanism exists in this squabble with the National Archives. And above all let's pretend that Trump negotiating with the National Archives is on par with bank robbers negotiating how much money the get to keep.

He was in negotiations. You want to fool people to turn that fact into "not fully cooperating?" Careful when you throw the word "lie" around.

Not in and of itself. You know that but pretend that's not the case here. Leaving some of the truth out is misrepresentation.

Is this what the left actually believes? "This handing over of the self to another in the case of MAGA . . . " ". . . is predicated on a recognition by these folks in Trump of what is in them i.e. xenophobia, racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, fear of never-enough, greed, lust for power, and insatiable need for more and more, sadism, masochism, rage, neurotic needs around control, and a shopping-list of other neuroses, repressions and suppressions." My question is this: How is it possible that a claimed professional mental health clinician could so mangle a diagnosis and mutilate the patient at the same time?

Since you've edited your post since I quoted it . . . "Is everyone who might run for President exempt from criminal investigations, or only Trump?" Criminal investigations, not presumptions of guilt was what you stated. Don't conveniently change the subject.

Oh, let's pretend there are no connections to what's on the laptop and Joe Biden.

Gee I don't know. Perhaps because Newsweek is noted for errors of fact, and has not employed fact-checkers since 1996? Garland sets his own schedule, why should he listen to the bleatings of Fox talking heads and Republican politicians? Why should he answer gotcha questions from a right-wing rump of the media? Is that the way you think the legal process should work? The scientific method teaches respect for facts, evidence, and only accepting hypotheses after they have been tested to destruction. Sadly, I don't see any respect for those attributes from pro-Trump supporters on this thread, it is all what-aboutism, look over there, and it's a lefty conspiracy. Sticking up for Trump is a bit like saying Stalin was good for the Ukrainians in 1931. All the facts and evidence say he has been a disaster for America, except for the very rich. So you're saying that high ranking DOJ officials talking to Newsweek never happened? Or what about their story do you claim they got wrong? And if you say they got it wrong then what reporting tells you that? And how would fact checkers be able to check whether or not Newsweek actually talked to these to DOJ officials? You've had an unprecedented raid on a former U.S. President which has never happened in all of U.S. history, a man who had the record votes of 75 million people, in a hyper political environment where millions believe the government is weaponising it's IC against it's political opponents, and the AG sets his own schedule for addressing the American people by waiting four days after the event? You pass this off as Garland simply not responding to the bleating of Fox talking heads and Republican politicians? Pray tell how should a public servant of the people respond to the people in such a momentous and historical event in your mind? The scientific method should include all facts, not just the ones you want. The latter would be goal seeking. To declare in such absolute terms that all facts and evidence, all mind you, say Trump has been a disaster for America shows extreme bias. Very unscientific in my opinion.