miamizsun wrote:

What does that have to do with coffee? 

 miamizsun wrote:
Isn't that the current rule?

I was wondering last night...why isn't there a closed technology where you hand all of these documents to someone on (let's say) a kindle...that has no functionality other than store/deliver/allow reading.  You can't print, you can't send....hell...you can't even take a picture of it.  When they've opened/read the document...it self-destructs (like the good ole days).

coffee thoughts
does the gov classify too many docs? 
and when should a doc be unclassified?
maybe a new rule that these docs can't be borrowed/taken out of the building
or off of the premises

 ScottN wrote:
Don't forget Trump's personal involvement in efforts to move, conceal and retain documents—after he was asked to return them.

 Steely_D wrote:
The difference is where Biden and Pence self-reported vs. Trump's defiance of subpoenas for classified docs and his lies about having them.

 ScottN wrote:

You know, it's gonna be true for just about everyone, I'd bet. The difference is how the ex responds.

 miamizsun wrote: 
To the best of my knowledge, this is accurate.  There has been discoveries at 3 different locations so far that I know of.  The Biden Center think tank in DC and in two of his personal homes.  Some were just discovered at his Wilmington home when the FBI went in and searched for 12 hours.  They found multiple groups and some or from when he was a US Senator serving on the Intelligence Committee and may date as far back as Nixon.  The Biden team has not allowed the FBI to search anywhere until this last one this weekend.  There is talk about his home at Rehoboth Beach being searched soon.

I also just heard of an email from 2014 from Hunter discussing his access to classified documents for some business dealings.  This according to the NY Post.

Other than this, no big deal.  Joe's not worried.  He has already said that he has "no regrets" about any of this.

in various news feeds i see where the current president seems to have classified docs stashed around his circle
i haven't been keeping up with this saga
on a scale of one to ten how accurate is this reporting?

 kurtster wrote:
Not sure what you are rattling on about, but you could have saved yourself a lot of time by just saying: “Yes, what you wrote pretty much sums up my thoughts about January 6th.”

 ColdMiser wrote:

agreed

 kurtster wrote:

" To call it an insurrection is a far fetched fantasy in that there is no way it would have succeeded even if it was the way it went down."

Kurt, none of Trump's attempts to overturn the election were going to succeed.

Doomed to failure:

* The calls to Raffensperger and other officials in battleground states to "find" votes for Trump. 

* The  attempts to create slates of alternate Electors who'd vote for Trump. 

* The attempt to have DOJ void the election. 

* The merit-less lawsuits alleging massive voting fraud.

* Trump's demand that VP Pence void the Electoral College votes.

* The attempt to disrupt the pro-forma  counting of Electoral College votes with a riot and invasion of the Capitol building.

AFAICT, the legally salient factor here is the intent driving these attempts, NOT chances of their success. 

If I walk into a bank with a big goofy Super soaker water gun and demand the tellers give me all the money, I can still be tried for attempted bank robbery.

As for Trump, it may be difficult to gather sufficient evidence that he helped plan in advance the storming of the Capitol, so he may not be charged with seditious conspiracy. But that was not a spontaneous riot with no clear purpose. 

Sorry.

 kurtster wrote:
Several members of the Oath Keepers recently were found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their plans for and actions on January 6. A trial of several members of the Proud Boys on the same charge is ongoing.

I will keep it simple: What were those who forcibly entered the Capitol and searched for members of Congress trying to achieve? What was their goal?  

 Red_Dragon wrote:

anybody not named Harris

 kurtster wrote:
Your argument is a bit like saying "only a few dozen people were killed when the planes crashed into the twin towers on 9/11".  

Factually correct.... as long as you're willing to ignore the damage inflicted by those actions that killed another 2,700 or so people.  

 VV wrote: 
Several things.

Yes it was a riot as far as I am concerned.  To call it an insurrection is a far fetched fantasy in that there is no way it would have succeeded even if it was the way it went down.  Hardly anyone was armed and while it slowed things down, there is no way I can see where it would have either worked or lasted longer than it did if this was an actual attempt to nullify the vote, take over the government or any part of it.

You want to talk about a real insurrection ?  How about the raid on Harper's Ferry ?  You do know about Harper's Ferry or should.  It was taught in our HS in 11th grade and for all I know, we probably had the same history teacher with the school being as small as it was.

The label "raid" was not used at the time. A month after the attack, a Baltimore newspaper listed 26 terms used, including "insurrection", "rebellion", "treason", and "crusade". "Raid" was not among them.[3]: 4 

In this context, tell me why the assault on the Federal Courthouse in Portland was not an attempted "Insurrection" ?  You refuse to call that an insurrection.  What is the difference between that and Harper's Ferry ?  Both are federal government structures and part of the federal government.  

Moving on, I have never condoned this riot in any way, shape or form.  I have always said that the rioters should be prosecuted and the procedures involving security at the Capitol be investigated.  It may be just me, but considering what was going on inside, it would warrant a much higher level of security than was present.

I didn't say the Capitol Policeman that shot the protestor was wrong, just that he did and the protestor shot was the only person who actually died that day during the protest.  And that the protestor was unarmed.  Is this not factually correct ?  And  that it needed to be investigated along with everything else.

This is pretty much all that I have ever said about January 6, 2021.

 Steely_D wrote:

 Red_Dragon wrote:

I will accept any ticket with Buttigieg, Whitmer, or Klobuchar on it.

 Steely_D wrote:

So, who are the Dems gonna stand up? Elizabeth Warren? Cory Booker?

The good thing about all this is that he shouldn't run again - and this will seal the deal. Exactly what the Demoncrats need. (And it doesn't at all stop the investigation into TFG)