placeholder

Nope. It's a privilege typically granted to ex-Presidents and ex-high ranking officials but not something they're legally entitled to. White House Reviewing Whether To Revoke Trump’s Access To Intelligence Briefings White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed Monday that the Biden Administration is weighing whether to strip former President Donald Trump of his access to intelligence briefings—a luxury typically granted to former presidents—after some outside officials expressed concern that Trump will exploit the information and use it to his personal advantage. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/02/01/white-house-reviewing-whether-to-revoke-trumps-access-to-intelligence-briefings/?sh=2feadbb8579c

It's funny. The Durham investigation was actually the second investigation of the Justice Dept. The first was by an Inspector General, Michael Horowitz. He came up with no evidence of criminal activity on the part of Justice Dept employees against Trump.. Barr wasn't satisfied with that so he appointed John Durham. But in Durham's biggest case to date, the one he lost, he predicated his charges upon the fact that the defendant had deceived FBI investigators. So just the opposite of why Barr authorized him to investigate.

Well, she kind of has a point. Instead of Merrick Garland signing off on the search warrant, it should have been done by the Attorney General....oh wait a minute.

False. For 4 of those years Trump was effectively immune from criminal prosecution. Since his exit has has employed teams of lawyers which is his right but has also slowed civil and criminal investigations.

Just because, among other things, Trump held a meeting with Putin with not only no advisers present, but not even a State Dept. translator?

Because he took them before he lost his security clearances and then held on to them. The National Archives conducted an investigation which takes time and... "Mr. Trump handed over the materials after several months of back and forth between his lawyers and the National Archives, which houses presidential records and eventually makes many of them public. The National Archives said in a statement that it obtained the boxes in mid-January and that Mr. Trump’s lawyers told the agency that “they are continuing to search for additional presidential records that belong to the National Archives.” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/us/politics/trump-national-archives-documents.html

So you think repeating a deflection will make it valid? I'm under no obligation to police the forum. I am under an obligation to provide evidence for assertions I make when challenged.

It's not incumbent upon any of us to challenge a post. But it is incumbent upon a poster to either provide evidence to back up an assertion or say nothing. Just more deflection coming from you.

You're the one who asserted that Trump was cooperating. You're the one who made the definitive statement. It's up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim. That should be obvious.

And we know that Trump was fully cooperating because he and his team say so. And why would anyone doubt that?

Have you shared your knowledge of the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" with ex-President Trump? Actually he supports a doctrine of "guilty even after being proven innocent." Donald Trump Says Central Park Five Are Guilty, Despite DNA Evidence Wading into a racially-charged case from his past, Donald Trump indicated that the "Central Park Five" were guilty, despite being officially exonerated by DNA evidence decades after a notorious 1989 rape case. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-says-central-park-five-are-guilty-despite-dna-n661941

I have never denied it. And I'm not surprised to see that since you've been caught out on your nonsensical understanding of "predicate", you're resorting to a deflection.

Nonsense. "In a legal sense, the term predicate means to base something, such as a fact, statement, or action, on another thing. For instance, a person may agree to give a crate of baseball bats to the local little league, predicated on (or based on) a parent’s withdrawal of a lawsuit." https://legaldictionary.net/predicate/#:~:text=In a legal sense%2C the,parent's withdrawal of a lawsuit. Or it could be based on a potential illlegal possession of documents, a search of the premises is warranted. All crimes alleged in a warrant are potential. Whether an actual crime has been committed is for a judge or jury to decide.

Someone's been visiting crazy websites again.

One of the looniest arguments that Trump supporters make, and that's saying a lot, is that if they can do it to the President then they can do it to you. Actually the accurate way to phrase this is, if they can do it you, why shouldn't they be able to do it to the President? Although, to be accurate, despite what so many Trump supporters still believe, Trump is actually the ex-President. If I had my way, the convention of calling ex-Presidents "President" as an honorary title, should be discontinued. That would make clear that they're just ordinary citizens now with no reason to expect special consideration.

But he absolutely had the authority to send the national guard to the Capitol.

I can remember all the way back when to the aftermath of the 2020 elections. As you may recall "Maga Patriots" were predicting that the courts would overturn the election results and that there would be mass arrests and convictions of high-ranking Democrats and government officials who had plotted against the Trump administration. How did those predictions pan out? It's very foolish to offer these kinds of predictions as arguments.

You will both be delighted to learn that at about 03:20 Thailand time, Fox News finally posted an article referring to this news., well after other major news sources. Apparently, it was another media source owned by the Murdoch's, namely, the socialistic Wall St. Journal, that got the scoop.

Well, if the unvaccinated are concentrated in a community that could be a problem for them. But if the unvaccinated are more randomly distributed, then not so much.

Another time traveler. Who's going to win the world series this year?

Despite which look at all bills that he managing to get passed. Whereas Trump even with a biggger majority in the House and Senate got so little done.

You're wrong. While it's wrong for the Federal Govt to send National Guard troops to the 50 states unless it either issues a Proclamation of Insurrection or the governors request assistance, in Washington D.C. the President is the person the National Guard reports to. So his position is analagous to a governor's. And the National Guard troops were on quick standby at the Armory, 2 miles from the Capitol.

Anyway, since according to the authorities, most residents of the UK are vaccinated, it really can't pose a threat to most. What's more, most people who do get infected with the virus don't suffer severe symptoms.

Just? Really? It's a huge lie that he constantly repeats.

How many times does it need to be explained to you that Diane Abbott is a backbencher and for good reason. Whereas Liz Truss isn't for very bad reasons.