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.
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.
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.