Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 20 August 2023

I'll give you the answers. But will you be like most Trump supporters, and just ignore them outright, and choose to attack me instead? Maybe, or maybe not, since you seem to be one of the more logical ones here.

LOL. You can be assured that I will not attack you personally, just your views. I find it amusing that you begin our discussion by characterizing "most Trump supporters" in such a negative light.

First, those achievements you mentioned while Trump was President, were not solely due to Trump. Looking back, his biggest achievement is either the tax cut, or the 3 new members of the USSC. On the tax cut, it was more Paul Ryan and Congress's doing than Trump. Doesn't mean I'm a supporter of Ryan, because I'm not. But his staff and other Republicans wrote that Bill, all Trump did was sign it.

First, I disagree with your analysis that Trump's two biggest accomplishments were the tax cuts and the three appointments to SCOTUS. When reviewing the WH's extensive list of the Trump Administration Accomplishments, I prefer to look at the big picture. Trump's America First policies and economic nationalism were a major departure from the decades long globalist policies that destroyed the American middle class and entangled us in endless wars that drained our nation's blood and treasure.

There is a reason why the Uniparty formed "The Resistance" right after the 2016 election. Trump was a threat to the established order and the political, corporate, media, academic, and bureaucratic elites who run this country and are disconnected from the people. Angelo Codevilla wrote a book about it, The Ruling Class: How they corrupted America and what we can do about it.

So it takes a team to accomplish things, but Trump just wants to hog all the glory for himself, when the facts don't bear that out. At some point, the rest of the team gets sick of it, just like a football team starts allowing sacks for their selfish, mouthy, egotistical quarterback who screams at them for the tiniest mistake. At some point they leave their own teammate out to dry, to show him he can't do it alone, and that we are supposed to be a team, not a one man show. But Trump refuses to ever be a team player, and just keeps leading the party off of one cliff after another. Eventually, you get to the point you just start letting that person go off the cliff by themselves. A point where 40 of 44 cabinet members no longer support you, and almost 0 out of 49 in the Senate.

I don't agree with your characterization of Trump wanting to "hog all the glory" and not being a team player." He constantly refers to himself as being the leader of a movement that is bigger than him.

Loyalty begets loyalty. What Trump has endured ever since he announced for the Presidency in 2015 defies description. The Obama/Biden Administration set in motion the Russia Hoax that had the Trump campaign and transition team surveilled before he even took office. The abuse of the FISA system was used to perpetuate the Russia Hoax, a political dirty trick that hobbled the Trump Administration from the beginning. In fact, the FBI was using electronic surveillance of the WH for the first 8 months of Trump's presidency. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker, et. al. were trying to stage a coup to remove Trump from office. They set up General Flynn to remove him from the Administration.

Thew Russia Hoax cost Trump and members of his family and administration millions of dollars in legal fees. The Mueller investigation was just part of the cover-up. And no one seems to mention the damage it did to our bilateral relations with Russia. And despite these dastardly deeds, no one has been held accountable for trying to take down the duly elected President of the United States.

And then we we had two phony impeachments that were conducted without due process. We had the illegally constituted J6 Committee, which was a kangaroo court that covered up the J6 Fedsurrection. We have County DAs in NYC and GA charging Trump for non-existent crimes and politicized DOJ that raided Trump's home and charged him with manufactured crimes. And many of Trump's former staff have been included in these witch hunts costs millions in legal fees. Thew objective is to prevent Trump from running again in 2024. TDS is not just some cute term to describe the obsession with all things Trump. Civil liberties and due process have been trampled to get Trump. It is unprecedented in our history.

Trump is an outsider. He depended upon the GOP to help him staff his administration. They set him up to insure that no one like him would ever again take office. The GOP was mostly silent during the Russia Hoax hoping that Trump could be removed and Pence be President. Lindsey Graham, who admitted he did not vote for Trump in 2016, threatened Trump that the Senate would not tolerate the removal of Mueller during his investigation.

Many of Trump's "team" were snakes who ignored his orders, e.g., Mattis. They were part of the Swamp. They tried to take him down repeatedly and worked with the MSM to paint the type of caricature you seem to embrace.

But it didn't start out this bad, even though you tried to claim it. Trump and his supporters want to blame Congress for them not funding his wall. But it was Trump who promised to have a plan for Mexico to pay for it! Yet he never once offered a single idea on how to do that. That's Congress's fault? Of course not, that's Trump's fault, he's the one who promised Mexico would pay for it, not Congress.

Trump was stymied at every turn to get funding for the Wall. He eventually was able to use DOD funding by executive order to get 500 miles built. Congress should have funded the Wall regardless of what Trump said on the campaign trail. It is a matter of national security. Trump secured the Southern border thru various policy initiatives. The RINOs didn't want the Wall. Their corporate paymasters wanted the continuous flow of cheap, exploitable labor. Now we have open borders that have seen 6 million illegal aliens enter over the past two years. Most Reps in Congress show little outrage at what is happening.

Republicans could have CONVICTED him of impeachment, twice, if they were as against him as Trump supporters believe. The second time, for J6, they had to really withhold themselves, because most every one of them was completely furious at Trump for what he had just done. Every single Senator told him not to have that "rally," even the ones who were going to speak in his favor that day. They knew there was nothing good that would come of it, it was a disaster waiting to happen, and that ALL Republicans would be perpetually smeared for his idiotic decision to go ahead. I'm surprised they didn't convict him to be honest, but McConnell controlled the votes and said the vote is now officially over, and Trump is on the way out anyway, so we will spare him.

Convicted him for what? What Senators told him not to have the rally? I just received my copy of Courage Under Fire--Under Siege and Outnumbered 58 to 1 by Seven Sund, former Chief of the United States Capitol Police. Three days before the attack Sund's request for the National Guard was turned down by Pelosi. He says he was never included in intelligence briefings prior to J6.

J6 was a planned intel op by the Dems and Deep State. The riot, not insurrection, started before Trump finished his speech. The rally was a legitimate expression of free speech about a stolen election. The persecution of the J6 prisoners is the greatest deprivation of civil liberties and due process in our history, worse than what was done to Japanese-Americans during WWII. Rep Congressional leadership has been silent on the treatment of J6 political prisoners and the murders of Ashli Babbit and Rose Boylan.

BIDEN DISGRACED: ABUSE of Jan 6th Detainees CONFIRMED in EXCLUSIVE Photos | Elijah Schaffer’s Top Picks (VIDEO)

A NATIONAL DISGRACE: Shocking images were leaked over the weekend showing the true cruelty of the Biden administration. Cramped in a windowless concrete cell, T January 6th protest related detainee was pictured only having a small light to see a bucket to use as a toilet. He has been transferred to over 18 different facilities and had been “forgotten” about.

But if they really despised him the way you describe, it would have been the perfect opportunity to really stick it to him. But they didn't. They showed mercy. Trump supporters should recognize this, and understand Republicans lack of patience, or willingness to ever trust Trump again, is because he can't be trusted. He'll ignore what every single one of them says, and have another J6 like screw up in a moments notice. And even when they try to be nice to him, like having mercy on his second impeachment, neither Trump or his supporters will recognize it, much less appreciate it.

LOL. Mercy my ass. Trump is the leader of the GOP. These RINOs know that the GOP is finished if Trump supporters stay home or form a new party. They like to use Trump's name for fundraising. They seek his endorsement. They are scared to death every time they see a Trump rally. They know that 2020 election was stolen. It is why many of them don't want to raise the issue of election fraud.

Trump won. Only incumbent President to "lose" when receiving more votes the second time. Trump received 11 million more votes in 2020, a 17% increase. The election was stolen. 75% of the GOP base believes it along with 55% of the general electorate.

So that's why they're not rallying around him. Trump is just a time bomb, waiting to go off again, and his supporters enable his deepest darkest desires by treating as if he's some sort of deity, incapable of fault, no matter how obscene the situation is. Stand back, is the smart play. Else you just blow yourself up again trying to help him.

Fortunately, you are in the minority. TDS can be fatal. Cheers.

You say this on every Pro Trump thread.
You need a hobby.
Seriously!

Fortunately, you are in the minority. TDS can be fatal. Cheers.

Excellent response.

My only addition would be something along the lines of "If you don't like Trump, could you provide me/us with a alternate choice?"

I won't even bother to ask for someone who even approximately reflects my personal political/social/legal/economic preferences...or, for that matter, won't try lying his/hers/its way to glory in lieu of actually working at the job. I've had sixty years worth of the latter and see no reason to accept any more.

For the NeverTrumpers it always boils down to his personal weaknesses and foibles. They hold him to standards that few can meet. As conservatives, we have had to hold our noses to vote for the Bushes, McCain, and Romney. They have lied to and manipulated us on the big issues that matter.

Whatever flaws Trump may have, his policies have been protective of American interests and our fellow citizens. America First is not just a slogan.

We have a corrupt, illegitimate President who is in acute mental decline. His policies are hastening our decline to the point of no return. We are being governed by fools and knaves. Where is the outrage from our so-called Republican leaders?

Excellent post! in the end the bird is no eagle just another Trump hating troll.

I didn’t realize there are “pro-Trump” threads at FR reserved for Trump fans. I’ve always seen this as a discussion forum where opinions are shared, hopefully in a respectful way. I guess I was wrong.

I didn’t realize there are “pro-Trump” threads at FR reserved for Trump fans.

Please.

There isn't.

But it IS a conservative site.

Most of the conservatives on Free Republic recognize the focus of the Trump administration was decidedly conservative.

I did not see much conservatism from George Dubya Bush, nor Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole or George Herbert Walker Bush, whether in practice as presidents or whatever their jobs as politicians were before they ran for President.

Trump had no political record so, yes, he was a gamble. BUT... in my opinion he was the only one who could beat Hillary in 2016.

So THAT isn't a fate we had to suffer through, no?

You can say what you will about Trump, but expect some people here to take offense and challenge you.

If that is something you don't want, you can either post and defend yourself, hit and post, ie., post it and scoot, or just don't post it. Your choice.

By the way, this is a thread where personal attacks are not accepted or condoned.

You have the right to type and post what you will.

No one has the right to attack you outside of Jim’s thread decorum rules.

I’ve been doing this thread for 25 years virtually nonstop. I want this weekly thread to be free of the stuff we see elsewhere. I myself have sometimes violated this and to all those I did it to, I’m deeply sorry.

I like both of you, I just think you’re wrong.

Actually I think the discussion on this thread has been very civil and yes, informative.

I’m pretty sure the eagle guy is some politico, he was referred to as “Jeb” by someone (insert smile here).

Then Kabar responds....very well as usual.

With that I affirm to have read and considered both sides.

I still hold the following beliefs:

-The last election was stolen. Don’t know how but I believe it.

-We have got to get another President. Biden does not have our interests at heart unless we are named Hunter.

-So far, I will vote for Trump. Don’t see anyone else better.

-Finally, when all is said and done....yeah, Trump has a bit of show-off in him. He likes the spotlight. But I do believe with every fiber of my being that when any sort of push should come to shove, Trump will do the right thing by America. I believe Biden and yes, the Democrats will do what benefits them.

Very astute analysis, Pat. Good job!

Agreed. Trump is a big mouth, a braggart and sometimes naughty. Like a real man, too often, and with the same warts and bad traits and well, as good and noble. See Shakespeare’s treatises on man from Hamlet, right?

But let us not forget. Many, if not most politicians are people, too. And many of them are really dirty, rotten scoundrels. They just don’t SHOW it. The hide it so well, but still are great and eager to slip that knife in your back.

Trump isn’t so well spoken. Less fair, yes, but not as foul, if you know what I mean.

You can be assured that I will not attack you personally, just your views. I find it amusing that you begin our discussion by characterizing "most Trump supporters" in such a negative light.

Thanks. I'm sure you wouldn't find it amusing if you were on this side of the debate however, as well over 50% of the replies to me these days are either insults, personal attacks, or profane in nature. That type of behavior isn't limited to FR these days either.

I prefer to look at the big picture. Trump's America First policies and economic nationalism were a major departure from the decades long globalist policies that destroyed the American middle class and entangled us in endless wars that drained our nation's blood and treasure.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's obviously flawed. The trade gap between the US and the rest of the world literally exploded under Trump . He didn't actually end any of our wars either. It's all an easily disprovable myth. He never actually withdrew us from anywhere, or anything, except treaties. DOD budgets went UP, not down. Once again, Trump presents this mirage of what he claims he will do, which never actually squares with the record. It takes research, and an open mind to ever see it. Took me years. Some will never get there unfortunately.

What Trump has endured ever since he announced for the Presidency in 2015 defies description. The Obama/Biden Administration set in motion the Russia Hoax that had the Trump campaign and transition team surveilled before he even took office.

And we all supported him then. I was right there on the front lines. That's how I got to know DeSantis so well, as he was on TV most every night making Trump's case for him. But it could have been a much smaller mess if Trump had appointed a good AG, and Deputy AG. I'm not trying to fully blame the victim here, but according to testimony Trump never even spoke to Sessions about whether he might recuse himself before appointing him AG, and this issue was already front and center by then. This was a colossal mistake, that led to Mueller being appointed, which extended the quagmire for half his Presidency. And yes, that is a big deal. Had he appointed a good AG, he could have been cleaning house on day 1. But based on Trump's literally horrible appointments into the DOJ throughout his tenure, he clearly brought many of these problems on himself. I know you're stuck in constant defend mode on anything Trump ever did, but this is the correct, overall, big picture analysis.

And then we we had two phony impeachments that were conducted without due process. We had the illegally constituted J6 Committee, which was a kangaroo court that covered up the J6 Fedsurrection. We have County DAs in NYC and GA charging Trump for non-existent crimes and politicized DOJ that raided Trump's home and charged him with manufactured crimes.

Is Trump being held to an unfair standard, compared to his predecessors, absolutely. And I supported him through his impeachments, and support him in his trials now. But I don't think you can say at this point that all the alleged crimes are non-existent, or manufactured. Just take the growing amount of evidence that Trump was showing off a classified war plan to attack Iraq, to members of the press at one of his golf clubs. I'm sure you know there's even audio of him describing it as still classified at the time. You can twist yourself in a pretzel and say he was just joking, or you don't have the proof, etc, and I do fully support the concept of innocent until proven guilty, especially in his case, but there is growing evidence against him in this regard, if you haven't been following it.

And that's just one example, of how Trump supporters are simply unwilling to consider he may have made a mistake. "We admit he's flawed" they all say, yet, you can never find a single thing they're willing to admit he ever did wrong. Doesn't mean he's deserving of all this persecution, it just means that there is a lack of reality surrounding Trump and his followers. As long as that exists, he will continue to make more and more mistakes.

Many of Trump's "team" were snakes who ignored his orders

Some were, but he appointed them. He doesn't deserve a free pass for putting those people in place. "Trump appointed snakes" is correct. "Trump refused to fire snakes he appointed" is also correct.

Trump was stymied at every turn to get funding for the Wall.

He never made a single proposal for Mexico to pay for it, as he had promised during the campaign. He was given countless ideas, including things he could have done with an executive order, like increasing the costs of visas from Mexico. He did none of that. And by the end of his presidency he was even talking about giving the DACA kids citizenship. I am not making any of this up. You probably even know all of it. You've just compartmented it all away.

I just received my copy of Courage Under Fire--Under Siege and Outnumbered 58 to 1 by Seven Sund, former Chief of the United States Capitol Police. Three days before the attack Sund's request for the National Guard was turned down by Pelosi.

As anyone should expect she would. But the issue is, that left NO additional security beyond the Capitol Police, which everyone should have known was insufficient. But no one wants to admit that Trump could have called the National Guard beforehand, but didn't. They want to hide behind Pelosi as if it was her fault not to secure Trump's event. Trump's event wasn't secure because Trump didn't secure it. And he definitely could have called the National Guard in advance, because he is the one who eventually called them, but only AFTER it had gotten out of hand. Watch this admission from him:

I'd like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol. Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness, and mayhem. I immediately deployed the National Guard, and Federal Law Enforcement to secure the building, and expel the intruders .

LOL. Mercy my ass.

The Republican Senators have shown Trump mercy. They could have easily convicted him of Impeachment, twice now, if they were really out to get him. It's the lack of understanding, and appreciation, that you yourself just displayed, that prevents them from ever wanting to help him any more than they already have. What's the point, they would clearly be thinking. To support Trump is just a risk, with no real reward.

Trump won. Only incumbent President to "lose" when receiving more votes the second time. Trump received 11 million more votes in 2020, a 17% increase.

And that is silly talk, that you've sadly devolved to, after making all the excuses for Trump you could think of. Once you've gone in so deep, but don't realize it, then things that don't even make sense start coming out. There were more votes on BOTH sides in 2020, because Trump and the Congress passed a bill that gave the states hundreds of millions of dollars to implement mail in voting, on a scale never seen before. So what if Trump went up 17%, because the Democratic totals went up even more! It's no different than a track star saying "I just ran my fastest time ever" as if that means they won the race. It doesn't. Others may have performed even better.

Fortunately, you are in the minority. TDS can be fatal. Cheers.

I don't have TDS in the least, I was huge supporter of his until just a few months ago. I still defend him at times, I just don't blindly defend him at every turn like I used to. His cost/benefit ratio has gone far negative, and will continue to go south. Enjoy the ride.

Thanks AB. You should know by now I am a big supporter of you, and this thread, which is a FR treasure. Not just the details you put into it, but how reliable you’ve been. Also enjoy the Sunday Bray as well. Keep up the great work!

The Republican Senators have shown Trump mercy. They could have easily convicted him of Impeachment, twice now, if they were really out to get him.

Sure could have. I am surprised their survival instincts kicked in and they stepped back from that leap into the dark void however much each of them wanted to be rid of him.

Thank you Sir. I’m an engineer, not a politico in any way. Just a long time Freeper, who holds his Christian and conservative beliefs above all else. I will not compromise, and will continue to vote that way, especially in the primaries, even if it means losing. Our voices must be heard, not bartered away in the quest of power, or celebrity. Thanks.

Thanks. I'm sure you wouldn't find it amusing if you were on this side of the debate however, as well over 50% of the replies to me these days are either insults, personal attacks, or profane in nature. That type of behavior isn't limited to FR these days either.

"If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Harry Truman.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's obviously flawed. The trade gap between the US and the rest of the world literally exploded under Trump.

First, I never mentioned trade deficits. But your assertion that they "exploded under Trump" is demonstrably false. U.S. Trade Balance 1970-2023

The trade deficit exploded under Biden, even allowing for the impact of COVID, which affected 2020 and 2021. US Trade Deficit Hit Nearly $1 Trillion in 2022, Largest on Record

"Imports of goods were up 14.9% to $3.28 trillion. They increased the most for industrial supplies and materials, led by crude oil. Import gains were also reported for capital goods, consumer goods, automotive vehicles, parts, and engines, and food, feed, and beverages. Services imports added 23.7% to $680.5 billion, with travel and transport higher."

"Exports reached $2.09 trillion, a rise of 18.4%, driven up by fossil fuel shipments."

2013--minus

2014--minus $510 billion

2015--minus $526 billion

2016--minus $506 billion

2017--minus $537 billion

2018--minus $593 billion

2019--minus $578 billion

2020--minus $627 billion

2021--minus $862 billion

2022--minus $948 billion

U.S. trade balance for 2021 was $-861.71B, a 37.32% increase from 2020.

U.S. trade balance for 2020 was $-627.50B, a 8.42% increase from 2019.

U.S. trade balance for 2019 was $-578.79B, a 2.41% decline from 2018.

U.S. trade balance for 2018 was $-593.08B, a 10.5% increase from 2017.

He didn't actually end any of our wars either. He never actually withdrew us from anywhere, or anything, except treaties. DOD budgets went UP, not down. Once again, Trump presents this mirage of what he claims he will do, which never actually squares with the record. It takes research, and an open mind to ever see it. Took me years. Some will never get there unfortunately.

He didn't get us into any new wars despite some provocations to do so. Trump had to rebuild a tired military that had been depleted by endless wars. Remember the General who told him that they lacked ammo?

DOD budgets usually go up just to account for inflation. Personnel costs comprise about 25% of DOD's base budget. DOD argues that their budget has not kept pace with inflation. Since when does spending more on defense equate to being a warmonger? Peace thru strength is the objective.

The military and Congress stymied Trump's efforts to withdraw from Afghanistan and Syria. Trump put more pressure on NATO countries to spend more on defense. Only 5 of them, including the US, met the agreed upon obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defense.

And we all supported him then. I was right there on the front lines. That's how I got to know DeSantis so well, as he was on TV most every night making Trump's case for him. But it could have been a much smaller mess if Trump had appointed a good AG, and Deputy AG. I'm not trying to fully blame the victim here, but according to testimony Trump never even spoke to Sessions about whether he might recuse himself before appointing him AG, and this issue was already front and center by then.

It was up to Sessions to inform Trump. In point of fact, it was a mistake for Sessions to recuse himself. He didn't have to. Unfortunately Sessions trusted the corrupt DOJ for counsel. It was all part of the Russia Hoax. They got rid of Flynn and Sessions. As I stated previously, Trump was dependent upon the GOP to recommend appointments. He was a total outsider without a retinue of insiders. He was constantly being stabbed in the back by the Uniparty.

s Trump being held to an unfair standard, compared to his predecessors, absolutely. And I supported him through his impeachments, and support him in his trials now. But I don't think you can say at this point that all the alleged crimes are non-existent, or manufactured.

I absolutely do think these alleged crimes are non-existent and manufactured. As Beria said, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." "Let us once and for all root out the seeds of individual ambition. Let us smash any manifestation of anti-party groupism, put an end to efforts to destroy party discipline, in whatever form these efforts manifest themselves" The Stalinists are running America.

Just take the growing amount of evidence that Trump was showing off a classified war plan to attack Iraq, to members of the press at one of his golf clubs. I'm sure you know there's even audio of him describing it as still classified at the time. You can twist yourself in a pretzel and say he was just joking, or you don't have the proof, etc, and I do fully support the concept of innocent until proven guilty, especially in his case, but there is growing evidence against him in this regard, if you haven't been following it.

First there is no evidence of what he showed or the classification level. He could have been using hyperbole. That said, the Presidential Records Act allows him to possess classified information. The corrupt DOJ has criminalized the possession of these documents and a dispute with the National Archives. Contrast that with the treatment of Biden. Or Comey who gave classified information to a friend to pass to the media so he could get a Special Counsel appointed.

This is the Russia Hoax all over again. FBI Swat teams descending on Trump and his supporters violating their civil rights and 4th Amendment rights. There was plenty of "evidence" showing that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal an election. And Rush used to say, it is the seriousness of the charge that matters, not the truth.

And that's just one example, of how Trump supporters are simply unwilling to consider he may have made a mistake. "We admit he's flawed" they all say, yet, you can never find a single thing they're willing to admit he ever did wrong. Doesn't mean he's deserving of all this persecution, it just means that there is a lack of reality surrounding Trump and his followers. As long as that exists, he will continue to make more and more mistakes.

You seem to be missing the point. We have a two-tiered justice system. There is a separate standard for Trump. His "mistakes" are crimes, while those who commit actual crimes are not held accountable, e.g., the Biden Crime Family. Look at the disparate treatment of the J6 political prisoners and ANTIFA/BLM. Be specific and provide some examples of his "mistakes" that you consider to be crimes.

Some were, but he appointed them. He doesn't deserve a free pass for putting those people in place. "Trump appointed snakes" is correct. "Trump refused to fire snakes he appointed" is also correct.

No one is giving him a pass. Trump fired plenty of snakes. They went on to write tell all books. Do you want all their names?

As anyone should expect she would. But the issue is, that left NO additional security beyond the Capitol Police, which everyone should have known was insufficient. But no one wants to admit that Trump could have called the National Guard beforehand, but didn't. They want to hide behind Pelosi as if it was her fault not to secure Trump's event. Trump's event wasn't secure because Trump didn't secure it. And he definitely could have called the National Guard in advance, because he is the one who eventually called them, but only AFTER it had gotten out of hand. Watch this admission from him:

Trump did not have the authority to call up the National Guard before January 6th. He did offer them, but he was turned down by DC's Mayor and Pelosi. As Sund said in his book and interviews, they were all concerned about "the optics," a term that was used by everyone from DOD to Congress. Kash Patel was present when Trump made his offer to use the National Guard. Funny that everyone forgets the attack on the WH when the Secret Service incurred more injuries than the J6 "insurrection" and forced Trump to retreat to his bunker under the WH. The Metropolitan police acted as bystanders. It was OK for Antifa and BLM to riot, loot, and kill.

After J6 started then Schumer and Pelosi got on the phone pleading with the WH to send in the National Guard--after the fact. All part of the plan.

What is a president's authority to send in federal troops? The Insurrection Act allows the president to call up the active military or federalize the National Guard under three circumstances.

And that is silly talk, that you've sadly devolved to, after making all the excuses for Trump you could think of. Once you've gone in so deep, but don't realize it, then things that don't even make sense start coming out. There were more votes on BOTH sides in 2020, because Trump and the Congress passed a bill that gave the states hundreds of millions of dollars to implement mail in voting, on a scale never seen before. So what if Trump went up 17%, because the Democratic totals went up even more! It's no different than a track star saying "I just ran my fastest time ever" as if that means they won the race. It doesn't. Others may have performed even better.

Silly talk? Those are facts. You are sadly misinformed about the widespread election fraud that took place in key battleground states. The evidence is overwhelming. So you don't believe the election was stolen?

If not, then it deserves a separate post. Zuckerberg gave close to $500 million to manufacture Dem ballots in key states. State laws were changed by Dem state officials and courts to facilitate the steal. There were so many anomalies in the 2020 election compared to previous ones. How does Biden win while winning only 1 of 19 bellwether counties? Why is Trump the only President in history who gained more votes the second time and lose? Have you seen 2,000 Mules? Read the thousands of affidavits collected by Giuliani that were presented to battleground state legislatures?

I have followed closely the theft of the 2020 election. It was stolen. Not even close.

The Navarro Report

Read the Molly Ball article, The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election that celebrates the theft.

Have you read anything about how Social Media colluded with Deep State to influence public opinion? Or the 51 former Intel Officials who authored a public letter on Hunter's laptop characterizing it as having the earmarks of Russian disinformation?

I don't have TDS in the least, I was huge supporter of his until just a few months ago. I still defend him at times, I just don't blindly defend him at every turn like I used to. His cost/benefit ratio has gone far negative, and will continue to go south. Enjoy the ride.

Denial just ain't a river in Egypt. A huge supporter until just a few months ago? Yeah, right. A sunshine supporter.

As I stated previously, Trump was dependent upon the GOP

ROFL. The irony is incredible here, considering you somehow still see Trump as your champion against the GOP.

That said, the Presidential Records Act allows him to possess classified information.

No, it absolutely does not. Have you even read it yet? Apparently not. Trusting what Trump tells you will often leave you completely misinformed, or worse, repeating those mistruths. The PRA only allows a President to keep "personal records," that being, things he created himself. No government documents, can remain in his possession, at all. Especially not classified ones. The unclassified ones must go in a Presidential Library process managed by the National Archives. It's really quite plain, when you read it. Trump is trusting you won't.

You seem to be missing the point. We have a two-tiered justice system.

No, I get it, completely. And, considering how you keep looping back to that complaint in every paragraph, it is clearly by far the main reason you are still supporting Trump. Probably goes for most people still supporting him. They want the government to pay for what they did to Trump. That's the summary of pretty much every thing you say.

And I want accountability too, but Trump has already proven he's incapable of ever delivering accountability. From his letting Hillary walk, to never firing any of his horrible hires, to having the election supposedly stolen right out from under his nose, to seeing a lot of his J6 supporters locked up without even trying to help them, he's been nothing but a punching bag for the other side. Is he really this inept, or is he fighting with one arm behind his back just to draw more sympathy?

Silly talk? Those are facts.

Facts that don't matter in the grand scheme. So what if Trump's vote totals went up 17%, when the Democrats went up a lot more. And all the "evidence' we hear of is not of actual "fraud" which has a legal definition. No, it's all statistical based, or complaints about process, that simply present a possible opportunity for fraud. But no actual fraud has been proven, to any measurable degree, just questionable processes. Yes, they're questionable, but they don't prove fraud, of any kind. And he's had almost 3 years to find someone to find a whistleblower from all the supposed widespread fraud. Not one? Anywhere? Someone who can show some first hand proof, is usually what you need to easily win in a trial. Without that, you better have some hard evidence of your own. Not just guesses of what may or may not have been happening. Even the two sets of PI's Trump hired to look into it, which included calling back homes to see if they did vote, and who they voted for, couldn't turn anything up. And Mike Lindell? Really?

Trump did not have the authority to call up the National Guard before January 6th.

Prove it. I say it's yet another Trump fairy tale you've fallen for. I gave you the video where Trump says HE called out the National Guard on J6. Show where he couldn't before. I don't think you can, based on what I've seen. No other Freeper has, when challenged, either. They all just say "well that's what I heard" or some other nonsense. Trump turned 1 million angry people loose on Washington with no security. It's a wonder it didn't turn out worse.

How does Biden win while winning only 1 of 19 bellwether counties? Why is Trump the only President in history who gained more votes the second time and lose? Have you seen 2,000 Mules?

Still stuck on Trump getting more votes than in 2020 LOL? As already explained, and anyone should understand, there was massive mail in voting. Vote totals for everyone went up, not just Trump. Is your Trump bubble that thick? Bellwether counties is an interesting statistic, but even that wasn't unprecedented. 2,000 Mules appears to describe ballot harvesting, which is legal in many states. Just because Trump told you not to do it, doesn't mean that was smart, or that doing it was illegal. And none of that is PROOF of anything. The lack of any concrete proof is one of the main reasons I quit supporting Trump. He doesn't have any actual proof. Just a lot of interesting statistics, or legal processes he doesn't like, in the end.

Have you read anything about how Social Media colluded with Deep State to influence public opinion?

Sure. It played a part, I would imagine. Wasn't it like less than 100 accounts that got banned on Twitter, and some stuff like that. Sounds pretty minor out of over 100 million votes. And media influence (your words) isn't fraudulent votes.

Or the 51 former Intel Officials who authored a public letter on Hunter's laptop characterizing it as having the earmarks of Russian disinformation?

Obviously they were lying. But Trump's own lawyer Giuliani misplayed the rollout of Hunter's laptop, which he had possession of, first. I know because I watched him release one little out of context e-mai a day, for about a month. I got no traction, without releasing it all, Wikileaks style. It was easy to ignore, and discredit.

A huge supporter until just a few months ago? Yeah, right.

Go look at my posting history if you doubt it. I know all these facts because I was continually let down trying to support this guy. One of the big turning points that started opening my eyes was the $250M he took under the guise of fighting the election theft, to then go and use that money for other purposes. I was right here on this site defending him, when all that money was collected in December of 2020, from those who were saying Trump was just going to take the money and run. When I found out that's exactly what he did, I felt betrayed. As should everyone. I've seen nothing since 2020 to make me believe Trump is any more trustworthy now.

ROFL. The irony is incredible here, considering you somehow still see Trump as your champion against the GOP.

Trump has learned his lesson. According to people like Kash Patel and Jeff Clark, Trump is already assembling his new team that will hit the ground running when he is reelected. Four years in the Swamp have prepared him. Trump is fighting the GOPe who don't want to give up power. He is the leader of the GOP.

No, it absolutely does not. Have you even read it yet? Apparently not. Trusting what Trump tells you will often leave you completely misinformed, or worse, repeating those mistruths. The PRA only allows a President to keep "personal records," that being, things he created himself. No government documents, can remain in his possession, at all. Especially not classified ones. The unclassified ones must go in a Presidential Library process managed by the National Archives. It's really quite plain, when you read it. Trump is trusting you won't.

OMG. Of course I have read the PRA. I don't know where you get your information, but you clearly have not read or heard the Trump position on all of this. As a strong supporter, I would have expected you would knpow Trump's position better. FYI: He has pled not guilty to all the charges as have his associates who were charged.

Mike Davis, former law clerk for Justice Gorsuch, makes the case for Trump:

Presidential Records Act v. Espionage Act:

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201 through 2209, generally controls the handling of the President's records.

Generally, records created or received by the President or this White House staff are presidential records.

This includes classified records sent to advise the President or his White House staff.

Before the Presidential Records Act, Presidents owned their presidential records.

Congress changed the law after Nixon won a legal fight on this issue.

After the Presidential Records Act, the U.S. government owns Presidents' presidential records.

Per the 2012 Obama judge ruling in the Clinton sock-drawer case, where President Clinton stuffed 8 years of highly classified audio recordings of his presidency in his sock drawer (see picture 1 below), the President solely decides what are:

- "personal" (belong to him)

v.

- "presidential records" (belong to government).

And if the President doesn't designate them as presidential records and then takes them when he leaves office, they are deemed personal records.

(Read news story and linked opinion here:

Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute--Judge ruled in 2012 that a president's discretion to declare records "personal" is far-reaching and mostly unchallengeable.

But even if people think this 2012 Obama judge ruling protecting Clinton is incorrect or Trump (somehow) shouldn't have the benefit of this ruling (because they hate and fear Trump):

"[T]he Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President's designated representative."

44 U.S.C. § 2205(3) (see picture 2 below).

Former Presidents do not have the right to have any classified record they want.

But they have the absolute statutory right to have (not own) their presidential records, classified or not.

There is no criminal component to the Presidential Records Act.

Disputes are settled with negotiations and civil lawsuits.

Not unprecedented and unlawful raid and indictments.

How can Trump violate the Espionage Act for retaining his presidential records he is allowed to have (not own) under the Presidential Records Act?

Garland must allege and prove more than mere retention, in order to charge a former president for espionage for having his presidential records he's allowed to have (not own) under the Presidential Records Act.

One way a court may attempt to harmonize the Presidential Records Act with the Espionage Act is requiring the government to allege and prove the former President intended to cause "injury to the United States or aid to a foreign nation result from the disclosures." United States v. Rosen, 520 F. Supp. 2d 786, 793 (E.D. Va. 2007).

There is zero evidence--not even an allegation--Trump intended to harm America by retaining his presidential records.

It is not a crime to be a jerk.

It is not "espionage" to fight with librarians and other bureaucrats.

We do not send former presidents, who happen to be your boss's chief political enemy, to die in prison over presidential-records disputes.

This is one key reason Garland's indictment of Trump is fatally flawed as a matter of law.

The hacks are intentionally ignoring the plain language of the Presidential Records Act.

Regardless of whether a President considers his records "personal" (which he owns; see Clinton sock drawer case) or "presidential records" (which the government owns), the President can have his presidential records.

"[T]he Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President's designated representative." 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3).

That statute trumps any press release from librarians or other bureaucrats--or any tweet from the hacks.

It doesn't matter whether his presidential records are national-defense information or marked classified.

That is why Congress funds the Office of the Former President, with secure office space, staff with clearances, and Secret Services protection.

Former presidents don't get to access any classified or national-defense information they want.

But they have an absolute statutory right to access their presidential records, even if the government owns them.

The hacks pretend to believe a former President of the United States (somehow) commits "espionage"--and should die in prison--for simply retaining copies of his personal or presidential records.

And fighting with librarians and other bureaucrats over them. (Gasp, "obstruction.")

Even if they are declassified.

Even if there is zero evidence the former President used them to harm America.

This is an absurd legal argument.

Presidents and Former Presidents are treated differently than everyone else as it relates to their presidential records (regardless of ownership).

The hacks are ignoring the Presidential Records Act, which doesn't even have a criminal component.

And peddling an unconstitutional reading of the Espionage Act.

The remedy is negotiations and civil lawsuits, not raids and indictments.

But Jack Smith is used to getting reversed by the Supreme Court, with his absurd legal arguments.

Indeed, he managed the nearly impossible:

Getting a unanimous Supreme Court to reverse his (bogus) conviction of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate.

But the damage was already done. Jack Smith took out a Republican presidential candidate in 2016. Mission accomplished, Jack.

Biden and Garland have Jack Smith on his new mission in 2024: take out Trump.

The hacks, of course, have been eerily quiet about President Biden's 5 sets of stolen classified records as the vice president and even senator, unguarded for years, moved several times, accessible by a foreign national, and potentially used to secure millions in foreign bribes and corruption.

Biden and Garland sent a raid after Trump.

They secretly colluded for 2 months on Biden's stolen classified records.

When they got caught and Garland appointed a Special Counsel, the FBI found Biden's 5th set of stolen classified records. What did Biden and his attorneys misrepresent about their 4 prior searches? How did this miss this 5th set? How is this not obstruction of justice, like Garland and Smith are charging Trump?

If the hacks cared about "national security," evidence that a sitting President is compromised by espionage, foreign bribery, and other foreign corruption would be a 5-alarm fire.

But, of course, they are hacks.

They know this is all about Trump's declassified (and damning) Crossfire Hurricane records.

And deflection from evidence the FBI covered up then VP-Biden and his son Hunter taking a $10 million foreign bribe and change U.S. policy.

Why are they so scared to let the American people decide in November 2024 whether they trust Trump or Biden more with our national security?

No, I get it, completely. And, considering how you keep looping back to that complaint in every paragraph, it is clearly by far the main reason you are still supporting Trump. Probably goes for most people still supporting him. They want the government to pay for what they did to Trump. That's the summary of pretty much every thing you say.

No, you don't get it. Trump is an innocent man. I am supporting him because of his policies and record of achievement during his first four years. Trump should be in the WH today if the election wasn't stolen. And yes, there needs to be accountability for the real crimes committed by Deep State and the Dems.

And I want accountability too, but Trump has already proven he's incapable of ever delivering accountability. From his letting Hillary walk, to never firing any of his horrible hires, to having the election supposedly stolen right out from under his nose, to seeing a lot of his J6 supporters locked up without even trying to help them, he's been nothing but a punching bag for the other side. Is he really this inept, or is he fighting with one arm behind his back just to draw more sympathy?

You keep harking back to never firing "any of his horrible hires," is demonstrable lie. He fired many of them from Mattis, Tillerson, Sessions, Kelly, Shulkin (VA), Scaramucci, Price, Costa, and many more.

Trump has promised pardons for the vast majority of the J6 prisoners except for those who committed violence. Trump says he's 'financially supporting' January 6 defendants and will look 'very favorably' about full pardons if he wins the 2024 election

Facts that don't matter in the grand scheme. So what if Trump's vote totals went up 17%, when the Democrats went up a lot more. And all the "evidence' we hear of is not of actual "fraud" which has a legal definition. No, it's all statistical based, or complaints about process, that simply present a possible opportunity for fraud. But no actual fraud has been proven, to any measurable degree, just questionable processes.

Another OMG. Did you read the links I provided to you? Do you know about the pending legal cases in GA and WI? Or the detailed reports with evidence in the Gableman and Favorito reports? Let's just take GA:

Who says there was no Georgia Election fraud? Each item contains a link to substantiate the allegation:

The U.S. District Court found on Oct 11th, 2020 the Dominion Voting System that was used in the November 2020 election is unverifiable to the voter and in violation of two Georgia statues.

There are six sworn affidavits of counterfeit mail-in ballots in Fulton Co. election results scaling into the tens of thousands

State Farm Arena video shows at least four violations of Georgia election law

Approximately 43,000 DeKalb Co. drop box ballots have no chain of custody forms to authenticate them

Tru-Vote Geo tracking showed evidence of ballot harvesting teams driving repeatedly to drop boxes in Fulton and DeKalb

All 350,000+ original in-person ballot images in Fulton are missing in violation of federal, state retention law

All 393,000+ original ballot images in Cobb are missing in violation of federal, state retention law

At least 17,720 certified in person recount votes have no ballot images in Fulton

18,325 voters had vacant residential addresses according to U.S. Post Office

904 voters were registered at a P.O. Box address, which is illegal

All or large parts of 2,000,000 original ballot images from 70+ Georgia counties are missing

Failure to make mandatory check of ballot envelope signature to signature on file resulted in a 2020 absentee ballot rejection rate drop from 3.47% (in 2018) to 0.34%, which translates to the acceptance and inclusion of approximately 4,400 dubious Fulton County mail-in ballots

The Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee report concluded on December 9, 2020:

“The oral testimonies of witnesses on December 3, 2020, and subsequently, the written testimonies submitted by many others, provide ample evidence that the 2020 Georgia General Election was so compromised by systemic irregularities and voter fraud that it should not be certified”.

I can provide similar findings for all the battleground states. There is real evidence, but the courts haver not allowed to to bed presented. Social media censored anyone who mentioned election fraud. The TV networks ignored it or called it a conspiracy.

Still stuck on Trump getting more votes than in 2020 LOL? As already explained, and anyone should understand, there was massive mail in voting. Vote totals for everyone went up, not just Trump.

Mail-in balloting is fraught with opportunities for fraud. It is why it is very limited in Europe. Many states mailed out ballots to everyone on the rolls, i.e., unsolicited. This increased election fraud. The Dems inflated the voter rolls and then submitted ballots from ghost voters. Canvassing after the 2020 election revealed many examples of fraud from voting from empty lots, PO Boxes, commercial addresses, etc. to large nujmber of votes coming from a single residence address. And the lack of proper signature verification compouinded the fraud.

Is your Trump bubble that thick? Bellwether counties is an interesting statistic, but even that wasn't unprecedented.

Provide me an example when a President won while winning just 1 out of 19 bellwether counties. I provided you the graphic that compared Obama's totals in 2008 with Biden's and Trump's 2020 results. Look at the number of counties won by Obama in 2008 to Biden's in 2020. And Biden had not coattails despite getting more than 12 millions more votes than Obama in 2008. Common sense tells you that Biden campaigning from his basement could beat Trump.

2,000 Mules appears to describe ballot harvesting, which is legal in many states.

Ballot Harvesting by state

Let's look at the battleground states:

Arizona--Arizona permits a family member, household member, or caregiver to return a voter's absentee ballot. It establishes the collection of early ballots by anyone outside those groups as a class 6 felony.

Georgia--In Georgia, a voter with a physical disability may have their absentee ballot returned by a family member (defined by the law) or a household member. Voters confined to a hospital can vote an absentee ballot immediately upon delivery by a registrar or absentee ballot clerk and return it to the official.

The law states that absentee ballot "delivery by a physically disabled elector may be made by any adult person upon satisfactory proof that such adult person is such elector's mother, father, grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, spouse, son, daughter, niece, nephew, grandchild, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, or an individual residing in the household of such disabled elector. An elector who is confined to a hospital on a primary or election day to whom an absentee ballot is delivered by the registrar or absentee ballot clerk shall then and there vote the ballot, seal it properly, and return it to the registrar or absentee ballot clerk."

Did you know that True to Vote discovered that one of the mules who delivered ballots ion the 2020 AZ election also was a mule in the 2021 GA runoff election?

Michigan--Michigan law permits a household member or a family member (defined by law), or an election official if those options are not available, to return a voter's absentee ballot.

WARNING--All of the following actions are violations of the Michigan election law and are illegal in this state:

(1) To vote an absent voter ballot at a meeting or gathering at which other people are voting absent voter ballots.

(2) For a person who is assisting an absent voter in marking the ballot to suggest or in any manner attempt to influence the absent voter on how he or she should vote.

(3) For a person who is present and knows that a person is voting an absent voter ballot to suggest or in any manner attempt to influence the absent voter on how he or she should vote.

(4) For a person other than those listed in these instructions to return, offer to return, agree to return, or solicit to return an absent voter ballot to the clerk.

(5) For a person other than the absent voter; a person listed in these instructions; or a person whose job it is to handle mail before, during, or after being transported by a public postal service, express mail service, parcel post service, or common carrier, but only during the normal course of his or her employment to be in possession of a voted or unvoted absent voter ballot.

PA--In Pennsylvania, a voter who qualifies for an emergency absentee ballot may authorize in writing a representative to return their ballot. If an authorized representative is not available, a deputy sheriff or constable may deliver and return the emergency ballot.

WI--Wisconsin law does not specify whether someone may return mail ballots on behalf of voters

So, ballot harvesting is expressly prohibited in these states except for WI, which is unspecified. In point of fact, most states don't permit ballot harvesting.

Just because Trump told you not to do it, doesn't mean that was smart, or that doing it was illegal. And none of that is PROOF of anything. The lack of any concrete proof is one of the main reasons I quit supporting Trump. He doesn't have any actual proof. Just a lot of interesting statistics, or legal processes he doesn't like, in the end.

You are wrong. There is concrete proof state by state of election fraud and violations of state law. I could provide chapter and verse of the evidence, but you have your mind already made up. As a former staunch Trump supporter I would expect that you would be more informed on this issue. Sadly, you are not.

Prove it. I say it's yet another Trump fairy tale you've fallen for. I gave you the video where Trump says HE called out the National Guard on J6. Show where he couldn't before. I don't think you can, based on what I've seen. No other Freeper has, when challenged, either. They all just say "well that's what I heard" or some other nonsense. Trump turned 1 million angry people loose on Washington with no security. It's a wonder it didn't turn out worse.

Trump provided the National Guard on J6 because it was requested and there was a riot going on. I provided you with the link on the three criteria that would allow him to

As currently worded, the Insurrection Act allows the president to call up the active military or federalize the National Guard under three circumstances:

At the request of a state. That's how it was most recently used, when Pete Wilson, then the governor of California, asked for federal help in 1992 to control violent protests after police officers were acquitted in the attack on Rodney King.

To enforce federal law. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan ordered the Defense Department to provide military units to help suppress violence at a federal prison in Atlanta. The disturbance was over before the troops arrived.

To protect civil rights. This provision authorizes the president to use the military to suppress "any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" if local law enforcement is unable to provide sufficient protection. It doesn't require the request — or even the permission — of the state. President Dwight D. Eisenhower used the power to send elements of the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas, and to federalize the entire state National Guard to enforce court-ordered school desegregation. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson invoked the same authority to enforce other desegregation orders in Mississippi and Alabama.

Again, for emphasis, Pelosi and Bowser turned down the offer from Trump to supply National Guard troops and they also turned down Capitol Police Sund's request for the National Guard on January 3. Your obsession of blaming Trump for J6 is getting a bit tedious. You should direct your anger towards Pelosi and Bowser. They are the one's charged with the security of the Capitol. It should also be noted that the Trump had a permit to hold the rally.

Sure. It played a part, I would imagine. Wasn't it like less than 100 accounts that got banned on Twitter, and some stuff like that. Sounds pretty minor out of over 100 million votes. And media influence (your words) isn't fraudulent votes.

You seem oblivious to the findings of Matt Taibbi and others on Twitter censorship that was coordinated with the USG. We have no idea as to the impact of suppressing negative information on Biden and favorable information on Trump had on the voters. It really had nothing to do with the number of accounts banned, including eventually Trump, but rather, the impact on the voters. Certain topics were not allowed to be discussed including voter fraud and the negative impact of Covid vaccines. You don't know whatr you don't know. I doubt you took the time to read the Molly Ball article.

Obviously they were lying. But Trump's own lawyer Giuliani misplayed the rollout of Hunter's laptop, which he had possession of, first. I know because I watched him release one little out of context e-mai a day, for about a month. I got no traction, without releasing it all, Wikileaks style. It was easy to ignore, and discredit.

Not only were they lying, but it was orchestrated and facilitated by the Biden campaign and current employees of the CIA and other intel agencies. To dismiss it as just "lying" misses the the more important implications of politicization and weaponizing of the government to influence the outcome of an election.

The FBI had the laptop since Nov/Dec of 2019. Trump was never informed of its existence. He was impeached the first time over Ukraine on Dec 18, 2019, without due process I might add. The Senate trial began on February 9, 2020. The Hunter laptop could have obviated the need for the trial or at least provided exculpatory information for Trump.

Go look at my posting history if you doubt it. I know all these facts because I was continually let down trying to support this guy. One of the big turning points that started opening my eyes was the $250M he took under the guise of fighting the election theft, to then go and use that money for other purposes. I was right here on this site defending him, when all that money was collected in December of 2020, from those who were saying Trump was just going to take the money and run. When I found out that's exactly what he did, I felt betrayed. As should everyone. I've seen nothing since 2020 to make me believe Trump is any more trustworthy now.

So you got off the Trump train in 2020 or shortly thereafter. Not just months ago as previously stated. So what exactly did Trump do with the money? You must have known something was up since you already had discounted election theft. Methinks you doth protest too much.

So who is your guy now for 2024?

Kash Patel...Mike Davis...

This is evidence of your main problem in understanding the reality of the situation - you're getting most, if not all, of your information from misinformation specialists on Steve Bannon's show. I am intimately familiar with these guys, and pretty much anyone who has ever been a regular on his show, because I used to watch it, almost every single day, for years. I used to even post links to the YouTube video of the theme song, on the daily FR thread that used to pop up announcing the show was approaching air time. So I was a devotee, of the highest order.

That is, until I started realizing they were BS'ing me, almost half the time. It's something you won't ever realize, if that's your main source of information, because it's propaganda all professionally slanted to give you a very specific Trump-centric version of events, from every guest. But Kash Patel was one of the first that started saying things that simply didn't stand up to a thorough examination.

I was rather oblivious to it myself, at first, and often used to parrot what Patel said, here and elsewhere. When the documents indictment first came out, Patel was just flatly saying that the President had the right to take classified documents home whenever he wanted. No qualifiers. When I repeated that here, another Freeper said that's not correct, NO ONE not even the President can take documents to their home at night. Sure enough, when I researched that in great detail, it's true, NO ONE, not even the President, is authorized to take classified documents home at night. They cannot, ever, be stored outside of a government building or facility. Period.

So I had egg on my face for repeating his incorrect claim. Over the next few days/weeks, he changed his position to say that there was some sort of "standing order" that Trump had issued, that anything he took home was automatically declassified. This is the cornerstone now of Trump's likely legal defense, but on its face, it's ridiculous. Even though Presidents DO have the ability to declassify things, there is still a PROCESS it has to go through. Before you flip out, it is easily provable, by simply looking at the PROCESS Trump had to go through to try to declassify anything else during his Presidency! Operation Crossfire Hurricane, where he promised he was TRYING to declassify them, but couldn't just snap his fingers and make it happen. Same for the JFK documents. These are perfect examples that prove there is a process that even the President must go through to declassify documents.

Also, further exposing Ka$H Patel's Lie$, is the testimony that just been leaked from Mark Meadows, who said there is/was no such thing as a standing order to automatically declassify things. This is the President's former Chief of Staff, who would have certainly known if such a thing was even being attempted. No one works closer with a President than their Chief of Staff. Basically everything that's coming from Patel is BS at this point, especially his analysis of the Presidential Records Act, which is laughably wrong.

Which takes us to Mike Davis, another misinformation professional working for Bannon/Trump. His analysis of the PRA is completely wrong, and easily disprovable, by a simple read of the PRA itself. Here is that link, and you barely have to even get started reading it, when you run into this all encompassing language:

§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records. The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Did you catch that? The US Government, not a current, or past President, retains COMPLETE ownership, possession, and control of Presidential Records.

Oh, but there's exceptions you say? Not really many, if any, for former Presidents. Read this:

(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.

Are you reading this, the ACTUAL LAW, not some propaganda from Bannon's guests? The National Archives has the full and complete responsibility for the custody, control, preservation of, and ACCESS to, the Presidential Records of that President. Is this getting through to you? Trump has ZERO ownership, power, or control over ANY of those documents. They are not HIS, as you have been led to believe. Whether he declassified them or not doesn't even factor in. Trump had no authority over those documents, at all, by the law.

But rather than admit these simple, clear, understandable readings of the law, Trump has gone out there and said "The Presidential Records Act protects me!!!" What a crock! Now, he may have an argument that the PRA is only a civil violation, as of today, and not a criminal one, but it is an outright LIE that the PRA gave Trump any right to control, own, share, these documents.

But but but what about Clinton's socks? Well, for anyone actually following this outside of Bannon's War Room, those tapes were NOT government records. They were NOT Presidential records. They are as of now, considered Personal Records, as they were not developed in the course of doing some interviews by Clinton, and, as Personal Records, Clinton was allowed to keep them, as the PRA does allow that for Personal Records.

But but but what about the espionage charges? Well that is a different matter, that is not the misinformation surrounding the PRA that I was originally referencing, or the blatant lies that Patel and Davis are peddling about the PRA in an attempt to defend Trump's lies claiming the PRA somehow magically protects him. On the espionage charge, that is more related to him sharing things like the Iran war plan, if that did in fact happen. An honest listening of that audio tape does sound like showing the war plan to press at his golf course is in fact what he was doing, and supposedly that is what others have testified to. Once again new information regarding Mark Meadows indicate that the Iran war plan was just laying around on a couch at Trump's golf club.

If Trump was only "boasting" as is his apparent legal defense appears to be, then that is simply unacceptable. Not from someone who woo'ed us to lock up Hillary for similar mistakes.

He fired many of them from Mattis, Tillerson, Sessions, Kelly, Shulkin (VA), Scaramucci, Price, Costa, and many more.

I'll give you credit for those examples, because I am all about finding the actual truth. You are correct, he fired a few of his horrible hires. Just not nearly enough, or fast enough.

Mail-in balloting is fraught with opportunities for fraud.

Finally you're catching on to exactly what I've been saying all along. Trump's "proof" the election was stolen, isn't proof at all. It is all statistics, or "opportunities for fraud" not fraud itself. And there's a big difference. You can give a million different analogies. Leaving your front door wide open when you leave for vacation is a great opportunity for theft, especially if you live in an apartment, but it's not a guarantee any theft will take place. It was just an opportunity. And Trump himself GAVE them that opportunity by passing that spending bill from Pelosi that funding states hundreds of millions of dollars to implement mail in voting. So he left the door, wide open, and doesn't have any actual proof it was stolen anyway. Just the opportunity.

You keep coming back to this as if it's proof. It's interesting, but in no way classifies as proof. First off, there are multiple lists of "bellwether counties" that may not be those exact ones you are referring to. But even sticking with those, according to all reports, that streak only goes back to 1980. According to this slightly more expansive list, about half of them were wrong in 1986.. So this hardly classifies as "proof" of anything.

We have no idea as to the impact of suppressing negative information on Biden and favorable information on Trump had on the voters.

That's EXACTLY right. The truth is starting to come out from your own responses. That doesn't mean we should support what happened, but we also cannot just assume that it meant the election was stolen. For example, there was some evidence that Russia did buy some social media space to support Trump in 2020. Does that constitute proof that Russia fixed the election for Trump? Of course not! You must use the same standard for both sides, if you want the honest answer.

So you got off the Trump train in 2020 or shortly thereafter.

No, I started waking up in 2021, when Trump took the $250M donated to him to contest the election, and basically disappeared for a year. Then, for his "comeback" interview with Candace Owens, he took full ownership of the vaccines, and even called them quote "one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of mankind." This was infuriating to me, as I was suffering a very likely vaccine injury right at that time. But I was still defending him at that point, as evidenced by my support of Patel's BS in late summer of 22, even though it was getting tenuous. His attacks on DeSantis, on the eve of the Florida election in 2022, where I live, was another major blow to my support of Trump. Finally, shortly after that, he threw the party at Mar-a-Lago with to celebrate the gay marriage law with his gay friends, of which there are many. That was pretty much the final straw.

So who is your guy now for 2024?

Right now it's DeSantis. He has taken the lead on many of the issues that Trump lost me over, Trump's support of the vaccines, gain of function, gay parties, etc. But I'm keeping my options open, as the primary hasn't even really begun yet. Thanks.

This is evidence of your main problem in understanding the reality of the situation - you're getting most, if not all, of your information from misinformation specialists on Steve Bannon's show. I am intimately familiar with these guys, and pretty much anyone who has ever been a regular on his show, because I used to watch it, almost every single day, for years. I used to even post links to the YouTube video of the theme song, on the daily FR thread that used to pop up announcing the show was approaching air time. So I was a devotee, of the highest order.

First, I don't get "most if not all" my information from Bannon's show. I get my information from a wide political spectrum of sources from my subscription to the Economist to daily news shows from France, UK, Japan, and Germany to websites ranging from the GP to the NYT and WP. And yes, Bannon is on the list. He has some good regular guests like Dave Bratt on the economy (I worked with his campaign to defeat Cantor), Dave Walsh on energy, Naomi Wolfe on Covid and the vaccines, Mike Davis on SCOTUS issues, Ed Dowd on global issues, Peter Navarro on economic issues and China, and Rudy Giuliani on election issues. Ben Bergquam's on the scene reporting from the border has been superb. Natalie Winter's investigative reporting on China and its "capture" of American elites is excellent And Bannon has frequent appearances by members of the Freedom Caucus. Signal not noise.

Bannon has been the target of DOJ and Deep State as well. He has seen firsthand the vile and disgusting tactics of DOJ. He has his weaknesses being prone to hyperbole and rosy predictions. But his close connections to Trump's campaign are insightful. Bottom line, I don't apologize for watching Bannon, but he is far from being the dominant source of my information.

I was rather oblivious to it myself, at first, and often used to parrot what Patel said, here and elsewhere. When the documents indictment first came out, Patel was just flatly saying that the President had the right to take classified documents home whenever he wanted. No qualifiers. When I repeated that here, another Freeper said that's not correct, NO ONE not even the President can take documents to their home at night. Sure enough, when I researched that in great detail, it's true, NO ONE, not even the President, is authorized to take classified documents home at night. They cannot, ever, be stored outside of a government building or facility. Period.

You are naive if you believe that the President cannot take classified materials to his living quarters in the WH or elsewhere. Biden and Hillary had classified documents stored outside of a government building, and they were not even the President. Biden held classified material in many locations including his garage. As a former Senator and VP, he should have not held any such information. Hillary had a separate server inside her home that was used to process classified documents. Jim Comey gave classified information to a friend who then gave it to the media.

I spent 28 years as an FSO and 8 years as a naval officer. I have dealt with Codels overseas that left behind classified information in their hotel rooms. Ambassadors and high ranking military officers take classified information home all the time. Remember Petraeus? I have been on Presidential Advance teams overseas where classified materials were widely disseminated and held. Some people are more equal than others when it comes to classified information. When I left the State Department, I had to sign a statement that I held no classified information and, if I lied, I would suffer dire penalties.

Members of Congress do not undergo security clearance investigations. House members, beginning with the 104th Congress, do have to take a secrecy oath. Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – the committee with oversight over intelligence agencies including the CIA and NSA – have a separate oath, commensurate with their unique access to sensitive information. Again, these oaths take the way of a public pledge, vice the arduous security-clearance process, complete with SF86, undertaken by the average security-cleared professional. Congressional staff members do have to go through the security clearance process. Remember Leaky Leahy? Or James Wolfe and Ali Watkins?

As the head of the Executive Branch, the President, as commander in chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When people lower in the chain of command handle classification and declassification duties — which is usually how it’s done — it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.

The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan — which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance — addresses this line of authority.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will."

In fact, Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said that "if Congress were to enact a statute seeking to limit the president’s authority to classify or declassify national security information, or to prohibit him from sharing certain kinds of information with Russia, it would raise serious separation of powers constitutional issues."

The official documents governing classification and declassification stem from executive orders. But even these executive orders aren’t necessarily binding on the president. The president is not "obliged to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed," Aftergood said. "And he can change those."

Indeed, the controlling executive order has been rewritten by multiple presidents. The current version of the order, Executive Order 13526--Classified National Security Information was issued by President Barack Obama in 2009.

One analogy that shows the relationship of the President to classified information is the following: The owner of a company writes a code of conduct for his employees. Is he subject to that policy if he violates it? Not really.

Even though Presidents DO have the ability to declassify things, there is still a PROCESS it has to go through. Before you flip out, it is easily provable, by simply looking at the PROCESS Trump had to go through to try to declassify anything else during his Presidency! Operation Crossfire Hurricane, where he promised he was TRYING to declassify them, but couldn't just snap his fingers and make it happen.

There is a process and it is laid out in the Executive Order authored during the Obama Administration. Trump wanted all the CH documents declassified, but in order to do that you must identify the documents, electronic communications, etc. probably in the tens of thousands. And being a responsible leader, you direct that the declassification process insure that certain kinds of information that may affect national security, be redacted. This is a long laborious process. So no it can't be done with the snap of the fingers. Theoretically, Trump could have just ordered all CH documents be declassified with no redactions.

Which takes us to Mike Davis, another misinformation professional working for Bannon/Trump. His analysis of the PRA is completely wrong, and easily disprovable, by a simple read of the PRA itself. Here is that link, and you barely have to even get started reading it, when you run into this all encompassing language.

Davis doesn't work for Bannon or Trump. He is not some novice unacquainted with the Constitution. His bio:

Mike Davis, the former Chief Counsel for Nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, is the founder and president of the Article III Project (A3P). A3P defends constitutionalist judges and the rule of law. Davis also leads the Internet Accountability Project (IAP), an advocacy organization fighting to rein in Big Tech, along with the Unsilenced Majority, an organization dedicated to opposing Cancel Culture and fighting back against the woke mob and their enablers.

As Chief Counsel for Nominations, Davis advised Chairman Grassley and other senators on the confirmation of federal judges and senior Executive Branch appointees, serving as staff lead for 30 hearings and 41 markup meetings. He oversaw the floor votes for 278 nominees, including the confirmations of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the record number of circuit judges confirmed during President Trump’s first two years in office.

Davis has served in all three branches of the federal government, including for President George W. Bush, the Justice Department, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and current Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Davis also led the outside support team for Justice Gorsuch’s successful confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Before returning to public service in 2017, Davis spent nearly ten years as a civil litigator in Denver, working at one of the largest law firms in the world and one of the top-ranked law firms in Colorado before running his own law practice for more than five years.

Davis is from Des Moines, Iowa. He received his Bachelor of Arts in 2000 and Juris Doctor in 2004, both from the University of Iowa. In 2017, Davis received Iowa Law’s “Emerging Leader Award.” Davis also serves on the University of Iowa Political Science Advisory Board.

If I had to choose between his analysis of the PRA with yours, I would go with Mike.

Trump is being charged with violations of the Espionage Act and connected process crimes. PRA violations have no criminal penalties. The contretemps between Trump and the National Archives revolved around two original documents, the letters between Trump and Kim Jong-un and the letter left behind by Obama for Trump when Obama left office. These were considered government property. Trump could have copies but not the originals.

Are you reading this, the ACTUAL LAW, not some propaganda from Bannon's guests? The National Archives has the full and complete responsibility for the custody, control, preservation of, and ACCESS to, the Presidential Records of that President. Is this getting through to you? Trump has ZERO ownership, power, or control over ANY of those documents. They are not HIS, as you have been led to believe. Whether he declassified them or not doesn't even factor in. Trump had no authority over those documents, at all, by the law.

The President has access to his own records regardless. In passing the PRA, Congress required that “public access to the materials would be consistent under standards fixed in law.” The PRA provides records maintenance requirements and permissions depending on whether a presidency is in progress or has concluded.

During a Presidency

During a presidency, the incumbent President is exclusively responsible for custody, control, and access to presidential records, and the Archivist may maintain and preserve the records on behalf of the President. While the PRA establishes the President’s responsibility, NARA notes that the agency is available for the President to consult with regarding records management practices upon request, although the PRA does not require such a consultation.

After a Presidency

After a presidency, the responsibility for the custody, control, preservation of, and access to presidential records shifts to the Archivist. Additionally, statute requires the Archivist to make the former President’s records publicly available as rapidly and as completely as possible.

The PRA does not provide the former President with a process for disposing of presidential records after leaving office. In contrast to the disposal request process for incumbent Presidents, the Archivist may dispose of a former President’s presidential records if they are deemed by the Archivist to have insufficient value to warrant their continued preservation. The Archivist must publish a notice in the Federal Register at least 60 days in advance of the proposed disposal date.

Designating a Presidential Library

Because the United States owns all presidential records, a former President must seek the Archivist’s permission to display presidential records in a different facility, such as a presidential library. The Archivist is directed to deposit all of the former President’s records in a presidential archival depository or another federal archival facility and is authorized to designate, after consultation with the former President, a director of the chosen facility who is responsible for the care and preservation of the records. Presidential libraries are not constructed using federal funds but are operated and maintained by NARA through its budget.

Restricted Access to Presidential Records

The PRA does not establish automatic access for an incumbent President’s records, which may be protected by executive privilege on a case-by-case basis. However, the PRA does statutorily narrow an outgoing President’s ability to restrict records access. As the length of time between the conclusion of a presidency and the present day increases, presidential records become more accessible. Access to a former President’s records is governed in terms of time passed since the conclusion of the presidency:

--Less than five years out, no public access is granted due to the Archivist’s processing of the records.

--Between five and 12 years out, the Archivist determines PRA restrictions in accordance with Title 44, Section 2204, of the U.S. Code with the former President.

--After 12 years, these PRA restrictions no longer apply.

The PRA (44 U.S.C. §2204) permits the outgoing President to restrict access to six categories of presidential records for specified durations of time, not to exceed 12 years.

After the expiration of the 12-year period, under Executive Order 13489, incumbent and former Presidents must be notified of the Archivist’s intent to disclose materials at least 30 days in advance of the release of the records. Prior to this release, incumbent and former Presidents may assert a claim of executive privilege over certain presidential records, thereby limiting public access. If an incumbent President invokes a claim of executive privilege over the release of a former President’s records, the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President shall review and decide whether the invocation of executive privilege is justified.

Similarly, if a former President invokes a claim of executive privilege, the current Archivist, Attorney General, and Counsel to the President are to confer and determine whether to honor the former President’s claim of executive privilege. The incumbent President may extend the time period to withhold the records and is to provide a reason for the extension.

But rather than admit these simple, clear, understandable readings of the law, Trump has gone out there and said "The Presidential Records Act protects me!!!" What a crock! Now, he may have an argument that the PRA is only a civil violation, as of today, and not a criminal one, but it is an outright LIE that the PRA gave Trump any right to control, own, share, these documents.

It is not even a civil violation.

While statute allows for materials relating to campaign events and private political associations to be considered personal records so long as the materials have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of the President’s various duties, critically, the President has a high degree of discretion over what materials are to be preserved under the PRA.

NARA does not have direct oversight authority over the White House records program as it does over federal agencies’ records programs. Instead, NARA “provides advice and assistance to the White House on records management practices upon request,” which would appear to give the President discretion over which materials might be included under the PRA. Whether these records are classified as presidential or personal records affects public and congressional access to such materials. For example, the PRA does not provide an access mechanism for personal records.

In the event of potentially unlawful removal or destruction of government records, Title 44, Section 3106, of the U.S. Code requires the head of a federal agency to notify the Archivist, who initiates action with the Attorney General for the possible recovery of such records. The Archivist is not authorized to independently investigate removal or recover records.

The corrupt AG and FBI used the dispute between Trump and NARA to criminalize Trump's dispute. It is similar to the way J6 was used. Trump didn't pack up his boxes when he left the WH, GSA and his staff did. Other Presidents were given years to sort through their documents to determine what is personal and what is Presidential. From a CRS 2019 Report on the PRA:

The volume of presidential records has increased exponentially in the digital age, as indicated by reporting on the amount of such records at the conclusion of a presidency. According to NARA’s 2009 Report on Alternative Models for Presidential Libraries, the Clinton Administration provided NARA 20 million presidential record emails at the conclusion of the President’s eight-year tenure. The George W. Bush Administration provided 150 million email records after its eight-year tenure—more than seven times the number of emails provided by the previous Administration. To date, the Barack Obama Presidential Library estimates that NARA has received 300 million emails, doubling the amount from the previous Administration.

“Huge volumes of electronic information” are a “major challenge” in record management, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and “electronic information is increasingly being created in volumes that pose a significant technical challenge to our ability to organize it and make it accessible.

NARA’s ability to process the volume of presidential records is closely linked to information access issues. In its FY2020 congressional budget justification, NARA noted it has “a significant backlog of unanswered [FOIA] requests at Presidential Libraries covered” by the PRA in part because of the volume of records and the information restriction process:

NARA must review all Presidential papers page-by-page, to identify and redact national security and other restricted information, which means it will take decades to make all of the records available to the public. Processing records in response to FOIA requests is even more time-consuming than processing the same number of pages in a systematic, archival fashion and does not produce discrete records collections that would be meaningful to the general public.

But but but what about Clinton's socks? Well, for anyone actually following this outside of Bannon's War Room, those tapes were NOT government records. They were NOT Presidential records. They are as of now, considered Personal Records, as they were not developed in the course of doing some interviews by Clinton, and, as Personal Records, Clinton was allowed to keep them, as the PRA does allow that for Personal Records.

Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute--Judge ruled in 2012 that a president's discretion to declare records "personal" is far-reaching and mostly unchallengeable.

One could easily argue that Clinton's recordings of his meetings with historian Taylor Branch are Presidential records. The plaintiff, Judicial Watch argued exactly that:

Plaintiff avers that from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001, Branch recorded seventy-nine audiotapes that “preserved not only President Clinton’s thoughts and commentary on contemporaneous events and issues he was facing as president, but, in some instances, recorded actual events such as presidential telephone conversations.

Based on Branch’s book, plaintiff contends that the recordings captured a verbatim record of President Clinton being President – performing his duties by engaging in conversations while Branch happened to be there with the tape recorder running – as opposed to simply reflecting about the ongoing Presidency with the writer.

The gravamen of the complaint, then, is that the tapes should have been included among the Presidential records transferred to the Archivist of the United States at the end of the Clinton presidency, but President Clinton retained them in his personal possession when he left office, and defendant is unable to produce them now.

Ironically, the 1978 Presidential Records Act was a reaction to Nixon's recordings in the Oval Office.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

The judge noted a president could destroy any record he wanted during his tenure and his only responsibility was to inform the Archives. You can read the actual decision by clicking on the link in the article. I strongly recommend you read the decision.

On the espionage charge, that is more related to him sharing things like the Iran war plan, if that did in fact happen. An honest listening of that audio tape does sound like showing the war plan to press at his golf course is in fact what he was doing, and supposedly that is what others have testified to. Once again new information regarding Mark Meadows indicate that the Iran war plan was just laying around on a couch at Trump's golf club.

I seriously doubt Trump had the Pentagon's contingency war plans on Iran. The context of Trump "allegedly" waving around a "war plan" was to dispute what Milley had said about his role in dissuading Trump from attacking Iran over a clear provocation. In fact, it was just the opposite. He wanted a military response and Trump stopped it. Milley's comments were contained in a book authored by someone who had interviewed him.

How does the Espionage Act apply in this case?

If Trump was only "boasting" as is his apparent legal defense appears to be, then that is simply unacceptable. Not from someone who woo'ed us to lock up Hillary for similar mistakes.

You are quick to draw conclusions without any knowledge of the facts. We saw this over and over again in the Russia Hoax. DOJ and the FBI leaking to the MSM about supposed facts that turned out to be garbage. Patel and Davis are not the liars, the DOJ and the FBI are proven liars. Ask Carter Page or General Flynn.

That's EXACTLY right. The truth is starting to come out from your own responses. That doesn't mean we should support what happened, but we also cannot just assume that it meant the election was stolen. For example, there was some evidence that Russia did buy some social media space to support Trump in 2020. Does that constitute proof that Russia fixed the election for Trump? Of course not! You must use the same standard for both sides, if you want the honest answer.

I provided you with real evidence from Georgia. You chose to ignore them. And over the past week, new revelations have emerged. I could provide you with a welter of real evidence, but it would be futile and a waste of my time. You are impervious to the truth. I am among the 70% of Republicans who believe the 2020 election was stolen. I also believe the 2022 election in AZ was stolen.

I have two litmus tests for Rep candidates for office:

Do you believe the 2020 Presidential election was stolen?

Do you support more aid for Ukraine?

A "no" to the first and a "yes" to the second are disqualifying.

Then, for his "comeback" interview with Candace Owens, he took full ownership of the vaccines,

Trump really has no choice but to support the vaccines developed under his Presidency. The same goes for the vast majority of our political leaders. Who wants to admit that you authorized a vaccine that could affect adversely many innocent people? In addition, if you admit it was a mistake, what would be the impact on the willingness of people to be vaccinated for anything?

DeSantis urged people to take the vaccines. Virtually every political leader worldwide did along with celebrities of all stripes. I got the vaccine and regret that I did. Has DeSantis ever issued a statement saying that no one should get the vaccine? Initially, DeSantis supported lockdowns, masks, vaccinations, etc. Kemp in GA opened up before Florida. Trump allowed the states to make those decisions.

Dr. Rand Paul to this day says that people in certain categories should take the vaccine. The CDC still urges people to get vaccinated including babies. Ditto for the WHO.

I read RFKjr"s book, The Real Anthony Fauci--Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, which is a detailed, well-researched condemnation of Fauci (Big Government) and Big Pharma. We have been and are being lied to for decades. None of our vaccines have gone through proper clinical trials. It is all about profits.

Yesterday Biden announced that he will be requesting more money for a COVID vaccine "that works." He is urging everyone to get it. Many colleges are still mandating the vaccine for students and some are requiring masks. Biden is heading down the same worn path just in time for the 2024 elections. He is trying to create the same conditions we had in 2020, which include more mail-in balloting and campaigning from his basement.

Right now it's DeSantis. He has taken the lead on many of the issues that Trump lost me over, Trump's support of the vaccines, gain of function, gay parties, etc. But I'm keeping my options open, as the primary hasn't even really begun yet. Thanks.

Gain of function? What is your source showing that Trump supports gain of function research? Fauci secretly re-instituted it in 2017 unbeknown to Trump. Fauci was behind gain of function research despite denying it was.

Supporting gay parties? Are you suffering from homophobia? Trump appointed gay Ric Grenell as Ambassador to Germany and then Acting Director of National Intelligence. Do you have a problem with that?

As I said before, Trump resurrected and expanded a dying party. It has now become the party of the American worker. Trump has attracted more Hispanic and black male voters than ever before. The Dems, the Uniparty, MSM, and Deep State are doing everything possible to keep him off the ballot in 2024. They have tried to destroy him ever since he announced he was running in 2015. They call themselves The Resistance.

If they are successful, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs. The naysayers say the GOP will lose if Trump is on the ballot. The reality is that they will surely lose if he is not. Trump supporters will stay home if he is not on the ballot. Trump represents the energy and dynamism of the new GOP. He is the leader of the movement.

Issues and the candidates no longer matter. Whoever collects the most ballots, not legal votes will win. Fetterman, Biden, and Hobbes are prime examples. Unless the GOP can stop election fraud, the Dems will "win" again. 70% of Reps believe Trump won in 2020. The election was stolen. We have ample evidence it was.

DeSantis is running a poor campaign. He lacks energy and authenticity. He can't draw a crowd. He is being beaten by Vivek Ramaswamy, a 38 year old outsider, who has connected better with the GOP base. His stance on Ukraine is a good example. DeSantis has become the new Jeb Bush.

You are naive if you believe that the President cannot take classified materials to his living quarters in the WH or elsewhere.

I'm not naive at all. I was back when I watching Bannon's show, and Kash Patel was saying what you are now. But I looked it, after another Freeper corrected me. And sure enough, per the law (EO) governing such matters, no one is allowed to keep classified material overnight outside of a secure government facility.

Ambassadors and high ranking military officers take classified information home all the time.

So what, a lot of them take illegal drugs or break other laws as well, doesn't make it legal or legitimate.

Some people are more equal than others when it comes to classified information.

Sure, some people in high places get away with things they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean they're not breaking the law. This is a really weak argument. A true person of honor believe those of higher rank should actually be held to higher standard of behavior, not a lower one.

There is a process and it is laid out in the Executive Order authored during the Obama Administration...This is a long laborious process. So no it can't be done with the snap of the fingers.

Well thanks for agreeing with me on that one. A President can't simply "just think it" as those like Patel and Davis claim, and the process be legally complete.

The contretemps between Trump and the National Archives revolved around two original documents, the letters between Trump and Kim Jong-un and the letter left behind by Obama for Trump when Obama left office. These were considered government property. Trump could have copies but not the originals.

Once again I agree. Trump is the one at fault for believing Presidential Records are "his" after he left office. Trump and his surrogates on Bannon's show and elsewhere continuing to spread the incorrect interpretation that the documents actually belong to Trump are only making the problem worse, by purposefully misleading millions of people for questionable political purposes.

After a presidency, the responsibility for the custody, control, preservation of, and access to presidential records shifts to the Archivist.

Yes, that's the exact line in the law I quoted as well. It's quite clear that the President does not retain custody, or even access to those documents, after leaving office. Once again I'm glad we're finally in more agreement than not.

I seriously doubt Trump had the Pentagon's contingency war plans on Iran.

Well you can believe that if you want, but so far all the evidence is that he not only had them, but was being quite loose with them. This is based on Trump's own voice on recorded tape, the supposed testimony to that by some in the room, and his Chief of Staff saying the war plan was laying on a couch at Trump's golf club.

I provided you with real evidence from Georgia. You chose to ignore them. No, I acknowledged all the "evidence" you provided. I just correctly identified it as evidence of POTENTIAL fraud, which is not the same as fraud. I gave the analogy of Trump leaving his front door wide open, by signing that bill that gave hundreds of millions of dollars to states to implement mail in voting, which leaves great POTENTIAL that the election might be stolen by mail in ballots. But it doesn't prove that it was. Every attempt to prove that, even by Trump's two separate teams of professional investigators, turned up nothing worth reporting.

Gain of function? What is your source showing that Trump supports gain of function research? Fauci secretly re-instituted it in 2017 unbeknown to Trump.

Yes, Gain of Function research WAS re-instituted under Trump. Where's your proof he didn't know? He had just been meeting with Bill Gates, where Gates said research was the main focus of their discussion. He also offered Bill Gates the Chief Scientist of the White House position, which thankfully Gates turned down.

Supporting gay parties? Are you suffering from homophobia? Trump appointed gay Ric Grenell as Ambassador to Germany and then Acting Director of National Intelligence. Do you have a problem with that?

I'm a believer of the Bible, where homosexuality is called "an abomination." Even if you don't believe the Bible, homosexuality is also a destructive behavior that leads to an average lifespan of only 50 years old, which is not only a horrible destruction of life, but a huge burden on our medical infrastructure.

So no, I don't support Rick Grennell, who was the chief ringleader in putting rainbow flags back out in front of our embassies after Pompeo directed they all be taken down. You want rainbow flags in front of all our embassies, worldwide? Well that's what we'll get if Grennell becomes Secretary of State under Trump, as Bannon often recommends. I wan that guy as far away from our embassies as possible, as that does NOT reflect America or our ideals, nor ones we should be projecting.

Issues and the candidates no longer matter.

Spoken like a true Trump disciple. It's all about celebrity, personality, and power now, to them. Trump is all knowing, all powerful, "the man who should not be questioned." So what about those laws, they don't apply to people like him. And who cares about parties, or principles, it's all about laying those aside for whatever Trump desires. I'm just not onboard with that. Not for Trump, not for anyone. America is far greater than any one man. Especially one who constantly claims he was a better President than Washington, or Lincoln, or anyone else, when his last year of power was actually one of the worst in America's history. I'm not interested in signing up for that again. He's so proud of those horrible "vaccines" he bought billions of dollars worth before even the first test was conducted, he's not only misguided, he's dangerous.