Raid on President Trump's Home

R.Caerbannog

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,536
It would be really great if this thread could stay on track.
I agree with you brother.

As an aside, the people derailing this thread are the same ones who shilled 'MSM talking points' over the past few years regarding SpyGate, the Hunter Biden Laptop, Russian Collusion, etc. Same people quashed, derailed, and attacked conversations regarding govt corruption as information was coming out.

Given the events and people behind the raid at Mar A Lago, I think there is going to be significant chaff from demoralized members of the community who may or may not have stakes in keeping the information sphere muddled.

That said, there are some interesting connections between the people who signed off on the raid.

 

Topkick

Verified Military
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Messages
1,316
SSMP
Military Mentor
View attachment 40208

I think the only time the political threads stayed on track was when you and the other mods could lock it for a bit when the personal attacks got out of hand.

We don't need Mods. We need to act like adults and police ourselves. Be intellectually honest, civil, and not so thin-skinned. If you make political statements, expect some discourse.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,197
Location
CONUS
We don't need Mods. We need to act like adults and police ourselves. Be intellectually honest, civil, and not so thin-skinned. If you make political statements, expect some discourse.
I think we need mods. People are incapable of civilly governing themselves in the absence of coercive consequences, and I'm not limiting that statement to this site.

At any rate, this situation (the Trump one, not the "could you just not be an asshole for once" one in this thread) is fascinating to me. Was Trump actually planning to run again in 2024? Does this latest incident change that equation? Did the Democrats time this deliberately to influence that decision ahead of the midterms? Will this have any impact on the coming elections, and if so, what will that impact be?

Happy to hear thoughts on any of the above questions.
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
5,150
Location
Durham, NC
I think we need mods. People are incapable of civilly governing themselves in the absence of coercive consequences, and I'm not limiting that statement to this site.

At any rate, this situation (the Trump one, not the "could you just not be an asshole for once" one in this thread) is fascinating to me. Was Trump actually planning to run again in 2024? Does this latest incident change that equation? Did the Democrats time this deliberately to influence that decision ahead of the midterms? Will this have any impact on the coming elections, and if so, what will that impact be?

Happy to hear thoughts on any of the above questions.

I think Trump has talked around (running in 2024), coming up to the line without actually crossing it. This incident does change the equation in that anything that comes out with any charge may prohibit him from running (per USC). Was this an early panic button/October Surprise? Dunno.
I see the impact one of two ways (well, really one of three): galvanizes the left, galvanizes the right, galvanizes both. I agree with previous comment (@Grunt ??) that Trump is the democrats Baba Yaga (after all it was HIS judges that overturned Roe V Wade!, said clutching my pearls), and their recourse is either get him out now so they can game plan, or go all-in on crushing and vilifying him.

I have a hard time figuring out timing: was this the plan for now? How long has this been in the works? A week, a month, three months? Did they do this now for a reason, vice a month from now?
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,429
Location
Not Afghanistan
This is delicious, this is like a Boston cream doughnut to a fat kid, aka me. This is a bowl of chili on a crisp, winter's day. No amount of mom's mac n cheese could warm me like this story.

We have a guy, a sexual predator, who murdered hundreds of elderly because he mismanaged the COVID crisis, with a brother who worked for a major news organization that actively covered for him, calling on his party who hates the subject of the investigation, for the transparent accounting of this nonsense IOT avoid a hint of political impropriety?

I don't care if the above is a massive run on sentence. This story is amazing!
 

Cookie_

SOF Support
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
1,010
Was Trump actually planning to run again in 2024? Does this latest incident change that equation? Did the Democrats time this deliberately to influence that decision ahead of the midterms? Will this have any impact on the coming elections, and if so, what will that impact be?
1. I'd have put the odds in the upper 80s that Trump would run. I think the midterm results of his backed candidates would have been what determines whether he fully commits or just plays on the outside influence angle.

2. I think the only way this changes the above is if criminal charges come out of this.

3. This is the really interesting question to me, because there are a number of groups that might want him out. If the Dems did this, they have to really hope charges come from this and expand beyond Trump into his network. That's the only way the likely surge in GOP voter base becomes an acceptable risk. To cross thread an example, there's a theory that the Dobbs decision was leaked because Roberts was trying to get Kavanaugh to preserve Roe. The idea is that the leak ensured Kavanaugh stayed in line with the other conservative justices, even though it would get Dems out in force politically. Maybe it's the same thing here; a big political win at the expense of motivating the opposing base.

There's also the possibility that, as @Topkick mentioned earlier, that some never Trump Republicans are involved in this. The official White House position is that Biden didn't know this was happening. If that's truly the case, it could be that this is Never-Trumper thing; take out Trump and "save" the GOP.

Of course, it could be that there were no major background political machinations and this is just legit an up and up criminal investigation, but nobody would ever buy that, myself included.

4. I don't know the outcome this will have on midterms. I'm sure in the immediate future there will be fundraising and outrage, but will that hold until November? The average voter seems to have a short attention span.

I'm not sure Trump will run again. I think he just likes the game. He enjoys the headlines, and most of all he seems to like fucking with their heads. I think its working, making the Dems heads explode trying to figure out how to remove him from the picture permanently.

I agree with the bolded statement. Trump is a narcist and he likes to flaunt that. Not that other politicians aren't(I think they all are to some degree), but he seems to take a bit more personal joy in it than others. I'm not sure if he won't run though. I think it comes down to how much these legal cases against his business hurt him. He may decide it's better to step out of the spotlight from the sort of scrutiny he's been put under since getting elected.


On today's episode of stranger than fiction...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
93f.jpg

Fuck Cuomo, but he's right.
 

757

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
205
Location
Chesapeake, Virginia
Since we don't have anything concrete at this point, I am going to operate off the assumption that the prevailing theory of "Trump took classified docs" is correct.

This case may be another example of 757's "throw it at the wall and hope that it sticks" theory. The most recent example of this is Roe V Wade. TLDR for that case, Mississippi (one of many states) made a law that limited abortion, it was challenged-appealed and made it to SCOTUS who then made the determination to DRASTICALLY alter the law.

Anyway, this case may follow a similar logic. We all know that POTUS has a plethora of protections and powers, but do those exist when he is out of office? If you ask 27 different lawyers you will probably get 13 different opinions. As far as I've researched, there really isn't a lot of precedent regarding classified docs and an ex-POTUS. which leads me to...

Precedent. One thing I've learned over the years is that when precedent has not been established...sometimes it's better not to engage because you can establish "bad precedent." In this case however, the risk of establishing bad precedent doesn't seem so bad. The code everyone seems to be harping on is 18 U.S. Code § 2071. Essentially, "Whoever, having the custody of any such record...shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States." You lose, former POTUS's can keep docs they had in the Oval...but if you win, Trump cannot run again.

If your goal is to prevent Trump from becoming POTUS again, this may be the "best" way to try and ensure that outcome.
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
5,150
Location
Durham, NC
Since we don't have anything concrete at this point, I am going to operate off the assumption that the prevailing theory of "Trump took classified docs" is correct.

This case may be another example of 757's "throw it at the wall and hope that it sticks" theory. The most recent example of this is Roe V Wade. TLDR for that case, Mississippi (one of many states) made a law that limited abortion, it was challenged-appealed and made it to SCOTUS who then made the determination to DRASTICALLY alter the law.

Anyway, this case may follow a similar logic. We all know that POTUS has a plethora of protections and powers, but do those exist when he is out of office? If you ask 27 different lawyers you will probably get 13 different opinions. As far as I've researched, there really isn't a lot of precedent regarding classified docs and an ex-POTUS. which leads me to...

Precedent. One thing I've learned over the years is that when precedent has not been established...sometimes it's better not to engage because you can establish "bad precedent." In this case however, the risk of establishing bad precedent doesn't seem so bad. The code everyone seems to be harping on is 18 U.S. Code § 2071. Essentially, "Whoever, having the custody of any such record...shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States." You lose, former POTUS's can keep docs they had in the Oval...but if you win, Trump cannot run again.

If your goal is to prevent Trump from becoming POTUS again, this may be the "best" way to try and ensure that outcome.

I just read this, not 5 minutes ago:

Donald Trump Must Be The 2024 Republican Nominee

The author details 'the myths' of Trump having classified docs and therefore breaking the law. I do not know the veracity of the author's assertions.
 
Top