• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Deeply Fractured US

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,481
Points
1,110
I've got no problem with finding something not in the warrant, I understand that. This,is not what this is about. It's about a political practice, favoured by the dems and the leftist legacy MSM. One would think, if it was so important, involving foreign intelligence, being sold by Trump to Ernest Blofeld , the warrant would have been served before Reinhardt's signature dried.

Nothing in the warrant or the unredacted portions of the affidavit suggest they believe classified/national defense information was being trafficked; simply that they believe it was retained, and efforts to investigate obstructed. Nothing released this far suggests a “right the hell now or yesterday!” urgency to the search, but rather that other options had been exhausted and the investigation was being actively interfered with, so it was time to try something different. It’s not unusual to obtain a warrant with a range of days permitted for executing the warrant. Some remarkably mundane logistical considerations and coordination can go into getting a search done, even once you have a judge’s signature. The last one I wrote gave us several weeks to work with based on some factors and considerations that impacted how we were to do it.

Don’t mistake the shrill screeching of social media speculation with the evidence based reasonable beliefs of responsible investigators. Probable cause is based on evidence and investigation, not guesswork and paranoia.

I would think it quite unlikely we’ll ever have the “nuclear secrets” detail confirmed in open and official public record such as court proceedings; that kind of detail would likely be withheld even at the expense of the prosecutorial efforts. That’s a big part of why I didn’t even bother posting those articles when they broke a couple nights ago. Maybe it’s as true as it is sensational, but we probably won’t know, and how classified probably doesn’t legally matter.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
If this memo is so high level and secret. A memo that was unknown until it was collected by the FBI. Taken to a secure location and looked over by high level clearance. Locked away until the Special Master has a look and decide on the documents. How would a document, so importantly sensitive and enough to charge Trump, escape from the security of the FBI? Why hasn't the FBI/DOJ explained how the leak happened? There can only be few agents that would have access. I'd start with them. The Guardian, like the WaPo, is not adverse to publishing crap and then correcting it a week later on Fridays back page.

Or accept the hypothesis that it's probably all bullshit.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,204
Points
1,040
Case in point on Brihard's point is the ongoing Cameron Ortis trial, where they are having a hard time prosecuting him because they can't have the evidence of what he took in open court.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cameron-ortis-new-lawyer-1.6481299

The FBI doesn't hold the documents, so not sure what you are talking about anyway. That seems like some kind of NSA/CIA or military intelligence as it's a foreign item; FBI/DOJ is investigating it because it's domestic. For someone that doesn't think we should speculate based on news stories that's a lot of extrapolation not based on facts as starting points.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
Alright. I was generalizing when I said FBI. I don't much feel like writing a dozen alphabet organizations everytime I talk about the documents. They were seized by the FBI, vetted by the DOJ and now held in a secure location by, the Space Force maybe, who knows?

Other than that, I'm not agreeing with your opinion.

BTW, CBC articles don't interest me, I don't read them. I don't even have them in my TV lineup, or listen to their local news. Might as well listen to TASS. Same crap and bullshit.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
For someone that doesn't think we should speculate based on news stories that's a lot of extrapolation not based on facts as starting points.
Tell me the real facts of this nuclear memo. Give me a start point. Real facts. Not bullshit in the press. So, give it up. What are your actual, verifiable, bona-fide facts of this incident. Speculation? That's all you've been doing.
Watch out for that pot, kettle dilemma.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,570
Points
1,010
At what point do you maybe consider this is actually true?

When a named source, who has not previously lied as a matter of record or attempted to manipulate public opinion, asserts that he has seen the document and that it bears some kind of security marking.

[Add: "nuclear capabilities" could be very little. Some uranium, some centrifuges, etc. The "short list" might not be very short.]
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,570
Points
1,010
A bit of a parenthesis. A lot of voting is done ahead of election day now. "October surprise" is too late to have full impact. So "surprises" have to happen earlier. But even blockbuster stories grow stale quickly. So something has to be done to freshen stories, which means producing new information at intervals.

So the J6 Committee carefully ekes out its hearings as a made-for-TV series, complete with "next week on J6 Committee" teasers, mostly featuring Liz Cheney. And while "FBI raids Trump" is a big story, "FBI raided Trump last week" and "FBI raided Trump two weeks ago...three weeks ago...etc" are not. So expect more stuff to be leaked or provided "officially" to give journalists something to write/talk about. Mueller and Durham showed that an investigation can be run without excessive leaks. If the investigation is tight, then anonymous vague allegations are convenient. But those are indeterminate, thus untrustworthy. A lot of bullsh!t has been peddled the past few years, and without any means of verification, the only prudent course is to require substantiation. Don't be gullible.
 

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,481
Points
1,110
Speculating on the veracity of this alleged nuclear info, or the details thereof, is pointless. We should likely never know, other than perhaps the vaguest reference of the broadest nature of the info that might come down the line in a court filing. But we should never see any meaningful content, nor shall we for most of the classified documents seized.

Always bear in mind what actually needs to be proven in prosecuting an offence. If a crime is contingent on wilfully retaining defence information (18 USC 793 d or e), then prosecutors have to prove those things: possession, defense information, could be used to the advantage of an enemy or to the detriment of the US, wilfully retained, and not handed over to an officer of the United States lawfully entitled to receive it.

They don’t need to prove what the information actually is so long as they prove the nature of it. US criminal law has long addressed the prospect of ‘graymail’ by a defendant threatening to compel discovery of classified information. The Classified Information Procedures Act allows criminal proceedings to move forward that depend on classified information, without that information being publicly disclosed. Not unlike our s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act and the separate federal court procedure that was developed in R v Ribic.

What that means for us, the interested public on the outside, is that if criminal proceedings eventuality, we’ll get tantalizing glimpses at the outside of the burger, but will not get to peel back the bun and inspect the beef.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,665
Points
1,040
Speaking of......? A leak favourable to the dems. Nobody held to public account. No justice to see being done.
If you are referring to RvW, I suppose it could be interpreted that way, by some; a ruling that returns states' rights on reproductive matters, and that polling suggests a majority favour the Democratic position over the Republican one, so that is a plus for the current administration.. Then again, the official Republican position agrees with the ruling and many may view the ruling as validation that the court is in their court (so to speak).

The last I heard the SCOTUS was conducting an internal investigation, and I don't know if any federal law enforcement agency has been engaged. I suppose some could interpret that as the entirety of the Court's staff is in the current government's pocket.

There is always the chance that no culprit will ever be sufficiently identified. There are hundreds of homicides that remain unsolved in this country in spite of the best efforts of hundreds of investigators.
 

IKnowNothing

Full Member
Reaction score
380
Points
730
If you are referring to RvW, I suppose it could be interpreted that way, by some; a ruling that returns states' rights on reproductive matters, and that polling suggests a majority favour the Democratic position over the Republican one, so that is a plus for the current administration.. Then again, the official Republican position agrees with the ruling and many may view the ruling as validation that the court is in their court (so to speak).
I've also read a pretty compelling thread that based on the timing of the leak and the review/negotiation processes between Justices that it is entirely plausible that the leak came from a party in favour of the decision, as it effectively froze out any substantial dissent or mitigation that would have come between draft and final.
 

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,665
Points
1,040
I've also read a pretty compelling thread that based on the timing of the leak and the review/negotiation processes between Justices that it is entirely plausible that the leak came from a party in favour of the decision, as it effectively froze out any substantial dissent or mitigation that would have come between draft and final.
Possibly, but that would be speculation. The internal machinations of the Court seem to match the Council of Cardinals in transparency.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
When a named source, who has not previously lied as a matter of record or attempted to manipulate public opinion, asserts that he has seen the document and that it bears some kind of security marking.

[Add: "nuclear capabilities" could be very little. Some uranium, some centrifuges, etc. The "short list" might not be very short.]
Maybe it was a memo about when Hillary sold uranium to the Russians.😉
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
6,593
Points
1,260
Oh boy, that would be hilarious if true.

Tallahassee-based immigration attorney Elizabeth Ricci explains there's a "good faith argument" to be made that luring the migrants onto planes with the promise of jobs makes them crime victims. And that means they could automatically qualify for a visa, she said.

"An enticement like that, regardless of whether you sign a waiver, is fraud and that is part of the definition of human trafficking," Ricci explains. "I think that everybody on those planes has a case to legalize as a direct result of being transported by the governor."

Ricci said she believes that's exactly what DeSantis has done. If law enforcement agrees, it could make migrants eligible for a special kind of visa that protects victims of human trafficking. "It would be so ironic for these families to ultimately legalize and become citizens as a result of his actions."


 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,779
Points
1,060
.......but it's OK when Biden does it. Let's not forget, biden has been flying Illegals all over the States and not notifying the places they're landing. He's been at it for over a year.
Just another example of the two tiered justice going on there.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,570
Points
1,010
Yes; best if everyone looks for oddball ways to criminalize the reactions to approximately "open borders" instead of addressing the root cause.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Pinball Dude
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,416
Points
1,260
.......but it's OK when Biden does it. Let's not forget, biden has been flying Illegals all over the States and not notifying the places they're landing. He's been at it for over a year.
Just another example of the two tiered justice going on there.
I didn't even know Mr. Biden was a pilot🤪...I've seen him speak, don't think I want him flying me.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
6,593
Points
1,260
.......but it's OK when Biden does it. Let's not forget, biden has been flying Illegals all over the States and not notifying the places they're landing. He's been at it for over a year.
Just another example of the two tiered justice going on there.
Source on that?
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
6,593
Points
1,260
Yes; best if everyone looks for oddball ways to criminalize the reactions to approximately "open borders" instead of addressing the root cause.
Is that really "oddball" though? Why didn't they tell the migrants that they were going to Mass instead of FL?

If a Dem politician did that, my reaction would be exactly the same.

If it violates the law, then they're held accountable.
 
Top