That's something you fail to grasp... You always have the human right to carry a gun whether legally or not. ( and pay the consequences) But to actually, constitutionally facilitate gun ownership in a paranoid nation is lunacy. Like throwing a box full of shivs into a maximum security jail...and expecting order to remain in place...
And beside all that the Mueller Report/investigation was not about Trump, it was about securing the USA's democratic process and the constitution.
I suppose I'm rather lucky living in Australia and not in the US, and particularly not next door to a gun toting, religious fanatical, racist American red neck.
“I’m from Texas, and I just have an assload of guns,” said John Risenhoover, a retired agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms who now lives in Colorado. Risenhoover said he owns about thirty guns, including firearms given to him by his father-in-law and grandfather, his self-defense Glocks, a shotgun for hunting ducks, a larger rifle for hunting elk, and a few .22 handguns, “little plinker guns” he used to teach his children how to shoot. (His daughter is more enthusiastic than his son, he noted.) “The fact that you’d open the closet and have a stack full of guns in this country is really not a big deal,” he said. “I know it sounds weird.” “I want everyone in my home to be able to defend themselves at a moment’s notice if a violent criminal decides he wants to break down the door,” he said. Fred said his wife usually carried a gun in her purse or on her person, and his 70-year-old mother, who sings in the church choir, had become such a gun enthusiast that he got her a laser sight for her gun for Christmas. He keeps guns stored in the living room; in his bedroom, on both his side and his wife’s side of the bed; and in his garage workshop. “If I’m working in my garage and someone wanders in and he wants rob me, I can’t say: ‘Can you hang on for a second?’” Fred couldn’t know where he might be “when the worst day in my life arrives”, he said. “If I’m going to believe that I’m prepared, I better be prepared.” Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Seems with this obnoxious Viciferous character that paranoia goes hand in hand with hypocrisy!!!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nothing extraordinary about it. The FBI has been a famously rightwing Republican biased law-breaking persecutor of American liberals and leftists and non-white political activists for its entire history - the way they blindsided Clinton in the 2016 campaign, while covering Trump's ass throughout, (Even though many of their agents had long personally despised his well known corrupt racketeering, contemptible family, and betrayal of home and country to the Russian mob, he was nevertheless a Republican and a wealthy man - they gave him due deference. They never even brought him in for questioning - treating him just as they had treated W and Cheney and that crowd) was entirely consistent with their past behavior.
If you mean by uncovering serious FBI misconduct and illegal warrants that trace back to the Obama administration trying to tamper in a free election, I agree.
Nope. He means the 34 indictments along with the confessions, guilty pleas, convictions and prison terms handed out to Trump associates in the US and Russia. And it literally paid out; the fines levied on those criminals more than paid for the investigation. So lots of criminals went to jail, justice was served - and the process used zero taxpayer money. Which means Trump supporters absolutely HATE it.
You mean the fruit of the poisonous tree, from blatant FBI misconduct and outright lying to the FISA courts, all apparently sanctioned by the Obama administration.
Ok so the investigation actually proved a bunch of stuff even after Trump took out one of his crayons and tried to smudge the whole thing out, and you admit that the truth is poisoning you. Imagine what could have been lost if he'd had his safety scissors on hand!
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal term of art for illegally obtained evidence that taints the whole prosecution and trial. It's grounds for retrial.
We might describe it, generously, as a problem of method: If you ever actually addressed what you reject, that would be one thing. There actually is a word, though, for throwing stones as one runs away, but that's an old definition not used much, anymore. Anyway, when we follow the link↗ to what I was referring to, we find a refutation of your fake fact-check rating and mistaking of commentary for actual news. Your response↗ was to run away: "I'm only seeing [generic] fallacies there. Get back with me when you can refute substance instead of source." As to that latter, you skipped those paragraphs↗, apparently, in order to complain it wasn't there. We've actually been through this petulant↗ behavior↗ before, Vociferous; and even as you were skipping out and botching up a couple years ago, it was as if you were imitating people and behaviors that otherwise defy your grasp, throwing phrases at people as if imitating what you've perceive of others—apropos your avatar, very monkey see, monkey do, but not understanding the basic difference. And, this time later, your perpetual inability to properly accuse and evident unfamiliarity with American history pertaining to your arguments continue to disrupt whatever it is you think you're trying to say, and the constant, floundering botchery remains as self-denigrating as ever. The odds you describe include the continuation of an extraordinary cirucmstance brought about by extraordinary conduct at the Department of Justice. If you don't understand how strange and significant it is that DoJ would even allow itself such exposure, then your odds are a faulty formulation in and of itself insofar as you're calculating according to dysfunctional presuppositions. These sorts of desperate changes of subject tell us much about your argumentative lack. That you are unable to understand one does not hope for the disaster the Mueller Report represents tells us much about your argumentative character. Misconduct by federal law enforcement is hardly extraordinary. Conspiracist tinfoil about president Obama is hardly unexpected from the guy who cannot comprehend the difference↗ 'twixt law and law enforcement↗ while promoting white supremacist tropes. Calling for "extraordinary corrective measures" only makes the point, and, really, if you think "extraordinary corrective measures" will "restore" "bipartisan trust", you're just stupid. Paragraphs like that leave other people in the uncomfortable position of being obliged to not believe you, but then they have to guess at whatever game you think you're playing. No, seriously, "bipartisan trust"? Do you even know what the sentences you write mean? Are you aware that sentence makes no sense in relation to what it purports to respond to? If there was a mirror in front of you, would you actually see it? I think when you compare whatever it is you think the FBI did to history, you'll find your crowd only really started complaining because it's Trump. You're doing that imitation thing again; it's kind of apparent when ignorance appeals to "any rational observer". Compared to the history of politicians and their supporters complaining about corrupt pardons, the blithe disregard for history only highlights conservative depravity. Beside the point. Hardly. You need to stop making stuff up like that.
I don't have time. Tomorrow I'm dealing with the Flat Earth Society, then next week it's the British Israelites. When you show me your crystal ball and which garage sale you purchased it at, only then will I believe anything you say.
Nope. I mean the successful prosecution of over a dozen criminals, and indictment of a dozen more - including many Russians who were helping Trump. Why don't you check out who was president during the majority of those convictions and get back to us.
We'll see. You really don't understand the repercussions of illegally obtained evidence, do you? Ah well, chalk that up with all your other ignorance. That you think the president knows everything that goes on under his purview, especially while being accused of obstruction of justice in that exact investigation, is beyond dense.
No conspiracy, actual evidence of his direct knowledge of what the FBI was doing. Your incessant need to repeat pedantic words games, years later, only illustrates you lack of argument. Just because you can't be bipartisan enough to imagine joint trust is your own failing. Believe it or not, there use to be bipartisan cooperation in this country. Before the left went completely ape shit crazy.
So it goes that someone asked former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner↱ what Judge Walton's ex parte order means: It seems Judge Walton is not persuaded that the redactions are appropriate/necessary. One issue may be that, if the redactions involve ongoing investigations, Judge Walton may need additional information about the status of those investigations before he can decide whether any disclosures would interfere with those investigations. The fact that he wants DOJ to set aside three days is intriguing. Sounds to me like Judge Walton may be ordering DOJ to bring more witnesses in to provide direct information rather than take one DOJ lawyer's word. A wise approach given the Judge Walton concluded previously that Bill Barr lacks candor. Stay tuned . . . The brief tweet-thread includes the point that "Judge Walton concluded previously that Bill Barr lacks candor". Failing to recognize the historical implications of this extraordinary circumstance only diminishes any such defense of the Attorney General. ____________________ Notes: @glennkirschner2. "It seems Judge Walton is not persuaded that the redactions are appropriate/necessary. One issue may be that, if the redactions involve ongoing investigations, Judge Walton may need additional information about the status of those investigations before he can decide whether any". Twitter. 8 June 2020. Twitter.com. 16 June 2020. https://bit.ly/37wy678
