Florida resident indicted by NY DA

[dd10snoop28]

I guess "hating" Ron DeSantis isn't the right description. I don't know nearly enough about the guy to dislike him that much. I strongly dislike his policies and I think his "war on woke" is completely absurd. I also really don't like his authoritarian tactics regarding punishing/demoting not only his political allies, but anyone who seems to even disagree with him.

Well, that's a radical change from "F'ING HATING DeSantis" earlier today. Maybe a little introspection could reveal that the problem for the increased hostility isn't someone else's?

That said, taking a few pages from the authoritarian playbook does not make one an authoritarian. I saw Trump's attack on democracy coming from miles away. With DeSantis, though, I don't see even remotely the same thing. DeSantis is more of a Mitch McConnell than a Donald Trump in that he'll flex as much power as possible within the confines of the constitution without trying to destroy it. I also can't see DeSantis doing crazy things like trying to blackmail other world leaders, appoint quack scientists to key US medical positions, bend over for Putin, repeatedly throw our intel/law enforcement under the bus, have protesters beaten for personal photo opps, etc.

Can you define what you mean by "democracy". Do you mean that the simple majority (50%) of the nation should drive our direction, and any actions opposed to the majority is a "attack on democracy"? I hear this word all the time. Would like to see it defined.

As far as all of the other things you said, a masterclass on reiterating surface-level media points.

[Duck07]

This cultish Donald Trump ridiculousness needs to end.

Why, as a non republican do you care? Especially since Trump being so ridiculous got the potato for the democrats elected? It isn't like you're here arguing when the democrats sexually assault women that it should make them "unfit for office" (among other heinous acts).

[Phalanx]

As far as all of the other things you said, a masterclass on reiterating surface-level media points.

This is why interacting with Pez about this is a waste of time. It's one thing to be ignorant, but it's another to still have a loud opinion. I don't know whether to applaud your patience or shake my head at the complete futility of the attempt.

[dd10snoop28]

He's been impeached twice (for good reason),

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status ... 6203784195

This is fun, and sad....Too long to repeat, but I'll summarize.

Essentially, the FBI buried the Biden/Poroshenko corruption scheme (former Ukraine president) at the same time they were concocting a witch-hunt to pursue the former president (late 2016). And get this: the person at the FBI who received the information from a confidential source (re: Biden corruption), and ultimately buried it, is the same person that was pursuing the former president's corruption with Russia, and ended up being the lead investigator in Mueller's probe. Insane. Who is he, you might ask? Andrew Weissman.

Same guy that is famous for breaking attorney/client privileges, threatening witnesses, and pressing lawyers in the Enron case (see: Ken Rice) and for separately having his conviction of Arthur Anderson be overturned 9-0 by SCOTUS after Arthur Anderson was forced to shut-down (80,000 employees).

The most interesting thing to me is the lack of fear these people have. As if they know that no matter what they do, they won't ever be held to account so they keep doing it. "OK, let me shut-down this investigation into my political friend and make-up an investigation into my political foe".

[pezsez1]

So many conspiracies, so little time.

[dd10snoop28]

So many conspiracies, so little time.

This is a perfect demonstration of why the corruption is so rampant in our 3-letter agencies. It is people like Pez who are in-charge of the institutions, and so when they are presented with documents/emails/transcriptions/audio recordings that demonstrate rampant criminal activity, they disregard it as "conspiracy" or "Russian disinformation". Much more convenient to brush aside everything that is misaligned with your political views than actually investigate. Sad!

[Phalanx]

^^^ There is a TON of this kind of evidence out there. In addition to various FOIA requests, Ric Grenell and others de-classified bushels of info hoping, I think, that people would look into this stuff, but the majority of journalists refused to do any investigation because of their political bias. Other stuff was also made public by Julian Assange until he was arrested for, uh, something. So one has to read twitter threads like the one above or other alternative sources to find out what is going on. If one only reads the NYT or Washington Post, you are only going to get the perspective of the government and intelligence agencies.

Nobody can read the info that is out there and still hold any regard for an indictment from the Justice Department. They are corrupt and ridiculously selective in what they pursue. Typically when they accuse Trump of something, it is usually to cover up the fact that they themselves are guilty of that very thing. The impeachments are a great example. That's how one can easily tell that Pez has done no reading. When he says 'Trump was impeached with good reason', he simply has no idea what he is talking about. In Pez's mind, if the NYT prints it, it's the gospel, and anyone who disagrees is a Trump-loving rube. Information like the thread above goes right past him with zero intellectual curiosity or reflection. You might as well be trying to reason with an NPC. For Pez to do any reading or thinking would go against his programming.






It has been interesting to watch people who, like myself, were formerly vehemently opposed to Trump still recognize that he is at least exposing how corrupt our system really is. When you see dyed-in-the-wool Bernie supporters like Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard suddenly coming on Tucker Carlson and defending Trump, you know something weird is going on.

[jBeavertonduck]

^^^ There is a TON of this kind of evidence out there. In addition to various FOIA requests, Ric Grenell and others de-classified bushels of info hoping, I think, that people would look into this stuff, but the majority of journalists refused to do any investigation because of their political bias. Other stuff was also made public by Julian Assange until he was arrested for, uh, something. So one has to read twitter threads like the one above or other alternative sources to find out what is going on. If one only reads the NYT or Washington Post, you are only going to get the perspective of the government and intelligence agencies.

Nobody can read the info that is out there and still hold any regard for an indictment from the Justice Department. They are corrupt and ridiculously selective in what they pursue. Typically when they accuse Trump of something, it is usually to cover up the fact that they themselves are guilty of that very thing. The impeachments are a great example. That's how one can easily tell that Pez has done no reading. When he says 'Trump was impeached with good reason', he simply has no idea what he is talking about. In Pez's mind, if the NYT prints it, it's the gospel, and anyone who disagrees is a Trump-loving rube. Information like the thread above goes right past him with zero intellectual curiosity or reflection. You might as well be trying to reason with an NPC. For Pez to do any reading or thinking would go against his programming.






It has been interesting to watch people who, like myself, were formerly vehemently opposed to Trump still recognize that he is at least exposing how corrupt our system really is. When you see dyed-in-the-wool Bernie supporters like Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard

suddenly coming on Tucker Carlson and defending Trump, you know something weird is going on.

Exactly +1

[UOducksTK1]

Good thread, I needed some off-season reading.

[woundedknees]

My father in law was a prime example of the mentality prevalent in many of today's opinionated folks... Find the "media outlets" that support your established world view, and exclude any opinions, arguments, discussions, and viewpoints that fail to support those standards.
Anyone who disagreed was met with his standard retort... "darn, THEY'VE " gone and made you a republican!" (His ultimate insult)

[jBeavertonduck]

Was it the former president that forced you to hate the current candidate?

That said, taking a few pages from the authoritarian playbook does not make one an authoritarian. I saw Trump's attack on democracy coming from miles away. With DeSantis, though, I don't see even remotely the same thing. DeSantis is more of a Mitch McConnell than a Donald Trump in that he'll flex as much power as possible within the confines of the constitution without trying to destroy it. I also can't see DeSantis doing crazy things like trying to blackmail other world leaders, appoint quack scientists to key US medical positions, bend over for Putin, repeatedly throw our intel/law enforcement under the bus, have protesters beaten for personal photo opps, etc.

I'd really like for you to explain some of your statements; you make them as if they are common knowledge.

What is the authoritarian playbook? How did Donald Trump attack democracy?
You seem to imply that Trump is trying to destroy the Constitution, could you explain how he's trying to do that?
Why would you assume that DeSantis would blackmail world leaders or appoint "quack" scientists?
What exactly do you mean by bending over for Putin? I don't understand how people like you continue to promote the Russian Collusion conspiracy.

[dd10snoop28]

There may be a pretty good chance this thing doesn't even get to the jury. The defense is going (and I think already has) to be petitioning to dismiss due to multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct. If even a couple of those allegations are accepted by the court then I don't see this getting to the jury trial. My non expert legal analysis.

[Phalanx]

There may be a pretty good chance this thing doesn't even get to the jury. The defense is going (and I think already has) to be petitioning to dismiss due to multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct. If even a couple of those allegations are accepted by the court then I don't see this getting to the jury trial. My non expert legal analysis.

Just because the jury was never told about the Presidential Records Act or the clear precedent in the Clinton sock-drawer case, I don't see what the big deal is. Trump clearly refused to surrender records that have never been demanded of any ex-president before, and he should spend the rest of his life in jail for it.

[dd10snoop28]

There may be a pretty good chance this thing doesn't even get to the jury. The defense is going (and I think already has) to be petitioning to dismiss due to multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct. If even a couple of those allegations are accepted by the court then I don't see this getting to the jury trial. My non expert legal analysis.

Just because the jury was never told about the Presidential Records Act or the clear precedent in the Clinton sock-drawer case, I don't see what the big deal is. Trump clearly refused to surrender records that have never been demanded of any ex-president before, and he should spend the rest of his life in jail for it.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/ex-tr ... number-up/

2-minute video between Tim Parlatore and Andrew Weissman. Absolute gold given Weissman's background.

[jBeavertonduck]

There may be a pretty good chance this thing doesn't even get to the jury. The defense is going (and I think already has) to be petitioning to dismiss due to multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct. If even a couple of those allegations are accepted by the court then I don't see this getting to the jury trial. My non expert legal analysis.

Just because the jury was never told about the Presidential Records Act or the clear precedent in the Clinton sock-drawer case, I don't see what the big deal is. Trump clearly refused to surrender records that have never been demanded of any ex-president before, and he should spend the rest of his life in jail for it.

Once again, I ask: Who has the authority to tell a President of the United States what he can and can not declassify?
How can a bureaucrat tell the President of the United States what documents he can and can not have?
You do realize that the documents in question are also kept in digital form by the government.