I held that opinion about Q several years ago, he's shifted. Backfire effect is a real thing. Stances he was only kind of supporting, now have his full support because admitting you are wrong.
Executive privilege on the happenings while in office don't have an expiration date. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the individual is in or out of office. The idea that a political opponent can come in and waive executive privilege belonging to their predecessor violates the entire concept of executive privilege. Executive privilege exists so that any president can get unvarnished honest advice from their advisors. This is for the good of the entire country.
That is what I just said. Can you not read? His executive privilege ended when Biden was sworn in. How does this impact trump stealing 30 boxes of the peoples documents. I say the peoples documents because Trump was president and no longer is.
None of the others were fake, it is just the GQP protected him. Trumps campaign team met with Russians at Trump tower to get dirt on Hillary. FACT. Trump pressured Ukraine to create dirt on Biden. FACT. Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. FACT. Trump created an angry mob and then sent them to attack the Capital. FACT. It is really sad how much kool-aid you and other Mad Hatters have drank to not care about these facts.
The point is that he can't state that EP allows him to possess these documents post presidency. They were stolen and it is a clear violation of section 739(e) of the Espionage Act as well.
Okay, how about when did you watch something on CNN (if that is your flavor, NBC if it is not) that said something akin to "Biden has lost it and we need to change directions"? Or, "Fauci has been caught in a trap of his own doing, we have to figure out the cost of taking such dramatic acceptances of the draconian steps that were obviously undertaken in the name of Covid"? Or, "Black Lives Matter is a chaos-embracing, nefarious organization that the well-meaning folks who want to do no harm have unwittingly emboldened by the use of a quaint slogan?" Or, "Rape is an abhorrent and violent offense to a victim, but it can't be a term used whenever someone wants revenge and so we need to wait for the trial to determine guilt or innocence and the accused MUST be considered innocent until then"? And last but definitely not least, "While we agree that abortion is a necessary action to overcome some bad events, it can not be used as a convenient way to eliminate poor behavior, including less-than-ideal births. It must not be a form of birth control because there are too many families that desire children and can't have any of their own"? Okay, I lied. I have one more, "While children are both curious and in many instances confused, they can not proclaim their right to gender identity that is different than the one they are born with until they reach the age of 18. It is the right of the parent to limit their range of proclamations and actions and schools have no jurisdiction over the welfare of a child except for observing their having proclivities that may indicate adult-level abuse"? Yep, CNN and NBC say those things and more, don't they? I can not post EXACTLY and succinctly what they said that is "in line with your way of thinking", as you demand proof to, um, stop with the inane dialog, but I will tell you what I have NEVER heard them proclaim. "Donald Trump is THE most outstanding POTUS in the modern era (post-9/11). We need to let him do whatever he thinks is necessary without question." Now maybe CNN and all never said that EXACTLY about Obama, but they DID imply it, like the Nobel Prize award for being...sort of black and nice sounding? "Abortions are SO abhorrent that we are giving you the list of the next clinics to target because we KNOW they are evil." Again,compare that to "Woke needs to be allowed to show resolve by destroying private property and historical items." You know who follows that dialog...IF you are paying attention. "MAGA folks can tear down any and all civil rights statues and exhibits because they are false history." See above. "Climate change scientists are a stupid and dangerous breed and need to be eliminated." How about the opposite for, well, you know? How about, "If you do not agree with what we are saying then YOU are too stupid and so need to be ignored." Again, no, there are no EXACT words to that effect from CNN and Company, but yes, that IS the dialog. So, put me in my place and prove me incorrect, by showing me exactly WHEN OAN said the things I said they did not...and then show me where CNN and Co. did NOT imply what I said they did. You know, provide the proof you demand from me. Show us all you are clearly superior to us "mouth-breathers"!! No, my guess is that you will make a smarmy reply to this and smugly "claim" the high ground because...your experts say you can. I prefer to use my own brain. Sorry you choose to not use yours.
It is good that you have come around to the fact the kids weren't in any danger from missing a field trip. Congrats.
Eventually? How many of these charades have to be made up for you to see that this is just hatred for one man?
That judgment is for the sitting president to make. A former president has no privilege. And documents are not privileged unless the content reflects deliberative process. And if then, the documents are not privileged if the privilege holder wants them back. Or to review them for damage control as In this case. The entire premise is absurd; including that Trump has any privilege they protected the return of these documents. We have one president at a time that determines the national interest.
One of the classic styles of coping with information that might cause cognitive dissonance: reject a mountain of evidence all at once so as to avoid having to examine the evidence with any specificity. In a weird way, this creates an incentive to leave a truly monumental amount of evidence of crimes around because it only causes the cognitive dissonance to increase, increasing the likelihood that those that might experience the cognitive dissonance will engage in strategies to avoid it, such as this one. See also: Claim: The Russia investigation is a hoax! Fact: It turned up evidence that the campaign manager was sharing private campaign information with Russian intelligence who was, at the same time, engaging in a variety of campaign activities (hacking, advertising, sending money to supporting groups (e.g., NRA), etc.) to benefit their campaign. In addition, several other Russian intelligence figures met with high ranking members of the campaign to discuss the campaign and attempt to influence policy. The investigation ended up resulting in a series of convictions of top campaign staff. Response: HOAX! *Followed by sticking fingers in ears and refusing to further engage*
You are making crap up. Go listen to Trumps speech on Jan 6. Go look at the timeline on when people entered the Capitol (hint: he was still speaking a 45 minute walk away). Do yourself a favor and try to analyze the situation openly and honestly. Don’t let the propaganda control you…
Not sure of this but didn't it say they collected boxes with markings and full of documents but no disclosure on the documents in the box? Or did they examine at the house and confirm they were classified? I'm not trying to be obtuse here but we know so little other then leaks and yet so many conclusions. All I'm saying is let's see what the goods are before we either condemn the DOJ or Trump.
Even if we want to split hairs as to whether a speech “incited a riot” or represented an insurrection. Why was there “a speech” at all? Why was Trump hosting a rally at this specific time and place - that in his own words would be “wild”. What was the purpose of this rally? Was he unaware some of his closest allies were framing it as civil war or 1776? Or is that lost on you?
So you'd be cool with a Republican having their hand picked DOJ AG rifling through all of the prior Democrat president's papers looking for something to charge them with? Just wanted to clarify.
