Politics Thread

[Masterofreality]

If you have Twitter, you have to read through this thread.
It. Is. Golden!!

https://twitter.com/annbauerwriter/s...jn9YCLpxi-0UPw

[paulxu]

I’d prefer the FBI indict Trump so his lawyers can obtain the redacted docs.

The lawyers don't seem to be quite up to it in this instance. One might even be a witness in subsequent proceedings.
The judge has tried to help them out, telling them what basic things they have overlooked, where to go find sample forms to file, reminding them they have to complete service, etc.
As to the redacted "docs," if you are talking about the affidavit items, they can get those if an indictment results; this keeps witnesses from being unduly publicized, sources and methods held close, any classified information kept secret.

If you are talking about the "docs" that were picked up from the warrant, they could always ask Trump what he had on the premises that he shouldn't have had.

[UCGRAD4X]

I wonder if a continued awakening of ultra liberals like Bill Maher are speculating about a conspiracy to steal an election.

https://freedomnewsusa.com/watch-bil...d-big-tech-to/

[Strange Brew]

The lawyers don't seem to be quite up to it in this instance. One might even be a witness in subsequent proceedings.
The judge has tried to help them out, telling them what basic things they have overlooked, where to go find sample forms to file, reminding them they have to complete service, etc.
As to the redacted "docs," if you are talking about the affidavit items, they can get those if an indictment results; this keeps witnesses from being unduly publicized, sources and methods held close, any classified information kept secret.

If you are talking about the "docs" that were picked up from the warrant, they could always ask Trump what he had on the premises that he shouldn't have had.

Thanks, I meant unredacted docs. The affidavit, which is why I said I hope they indict him because that makes everything (potentially) public. The obfuscation makes this look political.

[Masterofreality]

Thanks, I meant unredacted docs. The affidavit, which is why I said I hope they indict him because that makes everything (potentially) public. The obfuscation makes this look political.

Even “The Hill” thinks this was political BS.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...against-trump/

[STL_XUfan]

Even “The Hill” thinks this was political BS.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...against-trump/

"THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL"

Also, do you think the Hill is a left wing publication?

[Strange Brew]

"[FONT="]THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL"
[/FONT]
Also, do you think the Hill is a left wing publication?

Not sure if more does but those who lean Left on the board have found it credible in the past.

[Xuperman]

So, the couple that sold Biden's daughter's diary to Project Veritas have plead guilty to crimes that carry up to 5 years.

This situation is hard to get a handle on. I believe they were charged with Federal crimes, so the Biden DOJ could prosecute the case. One would think that a plea bargain will be made, for cooperation in building a case against O'Keefe and PV.

Obviously, the Dems would like nothing more than to get something criminal on O'Keefe. However, Biden damn sure doesn't want the contents of the diary to become a bigger story....but wouldn't Ashley Biden simply say the shower stuff was not true?

This story is complicated. I believe the FBI has made contact with PV employees. Apparently journalists can possess stolen material, but it looks like the DOJ legal argument will be that Project Veritas is not that type of "journalism". Can someone clarify the legalities here?

[Masterofreality]

Hilary should have been prosecuted. But she wasn’t so Trump shouldn’t be either.

Wall Street Journal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-com...mobilewebshare

[paulxu]

This story is complicated. I believe the FBI has made contact with PV employees. Apparently journalists can possess stolen material, but it looks like the DOJ legal argument will be that Project Veritas is not that type of "journalism". Can someone clarify the legalities here?

I'm not that I'm someone to help you.
But, I'll note that Project Veriitas apparently paid money for it and for them to steal other stuff.
I wouldn't suspect the journalistic exception to hold up under those conditions.