US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

china isnt a threat and the people who scream about their master plan to release the coof, engage in debt trape deplomacy, usurp the dollar and take global hegomony with the peoples liberation army that got their ass kicked by the vietnamese are retarded.

So why worry about Chinese posters saying what they say?

 

[Nigger Stripes]

So why worry about Chinese posters saying what they say?

The population bomb they have smoldering underneath their feet will have far more devastating consequences for them than anything that I can say.

So I will be quiet and smile. I am aware of the Thirty-Six Strategems and one of them says to do exactly this. 以逸待勞

 

[LurkTrawl]

china isnt a threat

Possibly not, depends on how BRICS works out and if they can successfully fuck over the petrodollar.

If they can, well...

The population bomb they have smoldering underneath their feet will have far more devastating consequences for them than anything that I can say.

So I will be quiet and smile. I am aware of the Thirty-Six Strategems and one of them says to do exactly this. 以逸待勞

And the population bomb ticking in the U.S. right now will be smoldering under the feet of everyone in The West™ in the next ten to fifteen years.

The whole world's going to go to shit over the course of the next decade. Arguably China et al aren't a threat for the sole factor that once this ship finally starts sinking, everyone the hell else will too, and if I'm being real the Chinese government is fucking retarded for wanting to play at being the next big empire - it'll work out for them the same way it did for us but at x10 speed.

 

[mandatorylurk]

In Florida the Mar A Lago gay docs case looks like it will likely be delayed because the judge is actually being a judge and not a government dick sucker. It also seems very apparent now Joepedo made an entrapment with the classified docs bullshit.













The absolute state of DC, dickchuggers:

 

[HTTP Error 404]

In Florida the Mar A Lago gay docs case looks like it will likely be delayed because the judge is actually being a judge and not a government dick sucker. It also seems very apparent now Joepedo made an entrapment with the classified docs bullshit.

Ver archivo adjunto 5460339

Ver archivo adjunto 5460340

Ver archivo adjunto 5460342

Ver archivo adjunto 5460343

Ver archivo adjunto 5460344



The absolute state of DC, dickchuggers:

Ver archivo adjunto 5460349

I had no idea a President could just ask for a previous president's Privledge to be removed. Seems abusable, but if Trump tries it in 2025 it'll suddenly be against the rules again I'm sure.

But yeah this sounds less like "Oh god Garland went rogue" and more "oh shit this went sideways as fuck claim Garland went rogue."

 

[dustbuster]

I had no idea a President could just ask for a previous president's Privledge to be removed.

No, he can't.
To allow such a thing would shred the constitution forever.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

No, he can't.
To allow such a thing would shred the constitution forever.

So in other words this entire thing is going to be thrown out the second a non-compromised judge gets ahold of it? Or it's setting up an abuse of power the Democrats will REALLY regret enabling in 2= years, whenever someone with the will to power to start putting them against the wall or in deep holes where they will never be heard from again gets in?

 

[Individualism Incarnate]

And doesn't drill for oil whenever any Biden figure comes along and depletes the strategic oil reserve.

'Does not' and 'Can not' have very different meanings.

 

[AnotherPleb]

Ver archivo adjunto 5460374

I had no idea a President could just ask for a previous president's Privledge to be removed. Seems abusable, but if Trump tries it in 2025 it'll suddenly be against the rules again I'm sure.

But yeah this sounds less like "Oh god Garland went rogue" and more "oh shit this went sideways as fuck claim Garland went rogue."

@Gehenna Does their throwing Garland under the bus make sense?

No, he can't.
To allow such a thing would shred the constitution forever.

The government has been wiping its ass with the constitution for a long time now.

 

[dustbuster]

So in other words this entire thing is going to be thrown out the second a non-compromised judge gets ahold of it?

There are no "non-compromised judges"
Thomas refused to stop this insanity when he received an emergency appeal out of the 11th on this shit.
They will allow it to continue through the election, and if Trump does not pardon himself due to "fortification", they will eventually "overturn" it on appeal 5 years from now when it's not possible for him to run again, just as an even more pissed electorate votes in someone on the right willing to abuse the same powers.

At this point I think Pinochet was too soft on these commies.
I'm rapidly reaching my "for no reason at all" moment.

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

So turns out the speaker, Mike Johnson, had a podcast called Truth Be Told. He did a bunch of episodes of it.

Recently the website of it went offline, and a bunch of people started screaming that Mike is deleting it and trying to hide the record. Surely it is full of RACISM and CHRISTOFASCISM and he is trying to stop people from HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE!!!!

Except it's bullshit. The site has gone offline, but the entire thing is still out there in every other platform where it was previously hosted as well like Apple podcasts. Pretty funny to see this drama collapse on itself before it even began.

Is it insipid?

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

'Does not' and 'Can not' have very different meanings.

Not in this case. The reason why the Left does not is because they enacted too many environmental laws, like emission standards, enforced by the EPA. Even if they want more domestic oil production, oil companies won't do it because they're the ones that eat the cost of building new oil derricks and refineries whenever the Left wants to virtue signal against Big Oil. Due to the decades of lawfare they've pushed on Big Oil and Auto manufacturers while also backing Green Energy scams, they can't rescind these laws. California constantly fucks itself in this way by insisting on Green Energy by 2030 while never building the infrastructure for either Green or their special blend of unleaded gas. That's how California gas is always a dollar higher than the national average or, as of this post, around $5.23 a gallon.

 

[LurkTrawl]

So in other words this entire thing is going to be thrown out the second a non-compromised judge gets ahold of it? Or it's setting up an abuse of power the Democrats will REALLY regret enabling in 2= years, whenever someone with the will to power to start putting them against the wall or in deep holes where they will never be heard from again gets in?

Look the establishment had to learn something after all that fucking around in other countries' electoral systems.

Is it insipid?

And will it blend?

Not in this case. The reason why the Left does not is because they enacted too many environmental laws, like emission standards, enforced by the EPA. Even if they want more domestic oil production, oil companies won't do it because they're the ones that eat the cost of building new oil derricks and refineries whenever the Left wants to virtue signal against Big Oil. Due to the decades of lawfare they've pushed on Big Oil and Auto manufacturers while also backing Green Energy scams, they can't rescind these laws. California constantly fucks itself in this way by insisting on Green Energy by 2030 while never building the infrastructure for either Green or their special blend of unleaded gas. That's how California gas is always a dollar higher than the national average or, as of this post, around $5.23 a gallon.

Yep, not the greatest of sources and I can't remember the name of the guy he had on, but a recent JRE episode had a guy who said pretty much this. Edit: [was the dark horse podcast by brett weinstein, "Entropy, Energy, & The 4th Frontier: Chris Martenson on DarkHorse" if you want to listen to it, it's on Spotify]. Plus you don't just turn the tap on/off, apparently it's worse than starting up a factory to get this shit rolling again.

Last I heard the SPR is at half, dunno if it's true but I have to wonder how bad it'll get when it's tapped out completely or for whatever reason left alone. As far as I can tell it's the only reason gas hasn't kept rising upwards.

 

[dustbuster]

Due to the decades of lawfare they've pushed on Big Oil and Auto manufacturers while also backing Green Energy scams, they can't rescind these laws.

This is false.
None of these court rulings are based on a 'constitutional right' to lower pollution.
They could easily repeal the regulations or laws.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

This is false.
None of these court rulings are based on a 'constitutional right' to lower pollution.
They could easily repeal the regulations or laws.

They don't because it would break the one unifying part of the Democratic platform: Environment good, no pollution. It's so embedded in normie NIMBY Democrats that if the Dems said "fuck it, drill baby drill," they'd stop being members, as would college graduates.

 

[dustbuster]

Since nothing else needs done McConnell is making sure barracks bunnies can kill their babies. Guess Joni misses her days in the military doing the same thing.
Ver archivo adjunto 5459977

https://x.com/MZHemingway/status/1719799284973916519?s=20

More developments on this.
Looks like it's a stage play full of verbal abuse, sound and fury signifying nothing so far.
Sit & Spin Mitch The Bitch and "Lindsey" the faggot.

 

[quaawaa]

This is false.
None of these court rulings are based on a 'constitutional right' to lower pollution.
They could easily repeal the regulations or laws.

They like to use bs consent decrees where the DOJ agrees to settle a case brought by an activist group. The activists dictate all the terms of the settlement, which just so happen to mandate that the government do everything that they want. Then the useful idiots in the establishment claim this agreement with an unelected bureaucrat is somehow a law. It’s not, and a future government can just ignore the consent decrees (Jackson, 1832).

This same tactic was used to create affirmative action, by the way.

 

[Breadbassket]

I had no idea a President could just ask for a previous president's Privledge to be removed. Seems abusable, but if Trump tries it in 2025 it'll suddenly be against the rules again I'm sure.

But yeah this sounds less like "Oh god Garland went rogue" and more "oh shit this went sideways as fuck claim Garland went rogue."

This somewhat all checks out considering the past relations between NARA and Trump's Communications Privilege as a former President of the United States.

​

Former Presidents and Communications Privilege (Relevant Parts Are Bold):

Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

In Nixon II, the Supreme Court determined that the Communications Privilege continues to protect presidential communications after the conclusion of the Administration within which the communication occurred and may be asserted by the former President.1 As described above, the Court found that a former President may legitimately assert the Communications Privilege to prevent disclosure of his official records after he has left office.2 The Court reasoned that the confidentiality necessary to ensure the free exchange of ideas between the President and his advisers while the President is in office

cannot be measured by the few months or years between the submission of the information and the end of the President’s tenure; the privilege is not for the benefit of the President as an individual, but for the benefit of the Republic. Therefore the privilege survives the individual President’s tenure.3

The Court’s determination appears to have rested on the reasoning that the general purpose of the Communications Privilege—ensuring the provision of frank advice to the President—could be threatened or undermined no matter when the disclosure of the covered communications occurs. Nixon II distinguished former Presidents from incumbents in three important ways. First, the Court explicitly stated that to the extent that the privilege serves as a shield for executive officials against burdensome requests for information which might interfere with the proper performance of their duties, a former President is in less need of it than an incumbent.4 Second, the Court concluded that the expectation of the confidentiality of executive communications is subject to erosion over time after an administration leaves office.5 Thus, the strength of a former President’s Communications Privilege claim appears to dwindle as time passes.

Third and perhaps most importantly, the Court determined that because only the sitting President is charged with performance of executive duty under the Constitution, he is in the best position to assess the present and future needs of the Executive Branch, and to support invocation of the privilege accordingly.6 In Nixon II, the fact that President Carte—the sitting President at the time—did not support former President Nixon’s privilege claim detract[ed] from the weight of Nixon’s assertion.7 In the Court’s view, it is the incumbent President who is better situated to make determinations about the need for executive confidentiality, because it is the incumbent President who may suffer the harm that the Communications Privilege purports to protect against if privileged documents were disclosed (namely that current advisers would be dissuaded from giving the incumbent President candid advice).8 As a result, when the incumbent President does not support a former President’s privilege claim, the strength of the claim declines.

The importance of the incumbent’s concurrence to a privilege claim by a former President was recently reaffirmed in Trump v. Thompson.9 Thompson arose from the inquiry conducted by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol (Select Committee). As part of its investigation, the Select Committee requested that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) produce relevant presidential records from the former Trump Administration pursuant to the Presidential Records Act (PRA).10 The request sought various categories of White House communications and documents created on or around January 6, 2021. Under the PRA, if any congressional committee requests a presidential record on a matter within its jurisdiction that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwise available, the National Archives shall make the record available.11 However, consistent with principles established in Nixon and Nixon II, the PRA also preserves the right of both current and former Presidents to assert privilege claims by providing that disclosure by NARA is subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke.12

Shortly thereafter, President Joseph Biden determined that under the unique and extraordinary circumstances and because of Congress’s compelling need to understand the horrific events of January 6, asserting executive privilege over the requested documents would not be in the best interests of the United States.13 Former President Trump disagreed and notified the Archivist that he was asserting the Communications Privilege. After President Biden clarified that he would not uphold the former President’s assertion of Privilege, former President Trump filed suit in federal district court to block NARA from disclosing privileged documents to the Select Committee.14

The D.C. District Court in Thompson viewed the case as a dispute between a former and incumbent President.15 Citing to Nixon II, the court stated that because the incumbent President is best suited to identify and determine the best interests of the Executive Branch, former President Trump’s Privilege claim was outweighed by President Biden’s decision not to uphold the Privilege.16 Moreover, the court reasoned that to side with the former President would not only second guess the sitting President’s judgment, but also the Legislative Branch’s judgment—for both President Biden and the House agreed that the requested documents should be disclosed.17

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court decision on appeal. The court acknowledged, with reference to Nixon II, that there was no question that former President Trump could assert the Communications Privilege and that the Communications Privilege was of constitutional stature.18 Nevertheless, the court held that a rare and formidable alignment of [three] factors supported disclosure of the documents to the Committee and outweighed the former President’s interest in confidentiality.19

First, the court stated that President Biden’s determination that it was neither in the Executive Branch’s nor the public’s interest to assert Privilege over the requested documents carries immense weight in overcoming the former President’s claim.20 Consistent with previous case law, the court viewed President Biden as the principal holder and keeper of executive privilege and the judiciary as ill equipped to . . . second guess the expert judgment of the sitting President.21

Second, the House had a uniquely weighty interest in investigating the causes and circumstances of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.22 Indeed, the court noted that having presented a sound factual predicate for the requested documents, there would seem to be few, if any, more imperative interests squarely within Congress’s wheelhouse than ensuring the safe and uninterrupted conduct of its constitutionally assigned business.23

Third, and weighing still more heavily against former President Trump, was the fact that the judgment of the Political Branches is unified as to these particular documents.24 The court was unwilling to needlessly disturb ‘the compromises and working arrangements that the Congress and the President had already reached.25

In light of these three factors, the D.C. Circuit held that the profound interests in disclosure advanced by President Biden and the January 6th Committee far exceed [former President Trump’s] generalized concerns for Executive Branch confidentiality.26 That holding was given added significance by the court’s determination that it would have been compelled to reach that conclusion under any of the tests advocated by former President Trump, including the demonstrated, specific need standard from Nixon or the demonstrably critical standard from Senate Select.27 As such, it appears the Select Committee would have been able to overcome the Communications Privilege in this circumstance even if President Biden had supported former President Trump’s Privilege claim.

The Supreme Court picked up on this point in denying former President Trump’s petition to stay the D.C. Circuit decision.28 In interpreting the opinion below, the Supreme Court—in an unsigned order—reasoned that Mr. Trump’s status as a former President [ ] made no difference to the court’s decision since the D.C. Circuit had concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were an incumbent.29 Because the former President’s assertion of privilege would have been unsuccessful either way, the Court declared the D.C. Circuit’s discussion of when executive privilege claims could properly be asserted by former Presidents to be nonbinding dictum.30

This is from the heavily censored 32-page affidavit to raid Mar-a-Lago back in 2022:






There are a whole lot of black bars between the last two images so it's not exactly made obvious what is said about the declassification being legitimate or not, it just isn't addressed in a manner that is available for the public to read in the document.

 

[LurkTrawl]

More developments on this.
Looks like it's a stage play full of verbal abuse, sound and fury signifying nothing so far.
Sit & Spin Mitch The Bitch and "Lindsey" the faggot.

Ver archivo adjunto 5460506

It's either killing children or it isn't.

If doing something in the name of not killing kids is "an abuse of power" then what the fuck is that power even for? I mean, I know, but it's just so damn absurd.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

It would also open the floodgates to undoing any such arbitrary "rule by Federal Agency Regulation" could open the floodgates to undoing a entire century of such rule by unconstitutional courts where people are not allowed a jury of their peers but instead the whims of unelected bureaucrats they never voted for even indirectly.

Is it insipid?

It seems to be just a bunch of nothing bland opinions one would expect from a MAGA leaning Republican but I don't know I haven`t heard it could be straight fire. I assume there isn't anything actually super based or super dangerous since no one has made a huge drama over it already. Here is a link with all of the 69 episodes.