Ah! have definitely heard of Talula’s. Haven’t been to KS since pre-covid, but might have to take the hike down there once we’re home.
I might also still have a gift certificate from Nomadic Pies that I should use sometime.
And try Kennett Brewing, and get back to the several wineries in that area …
2 Likes
One good turn…
13 Likes
Yeah but why not just swim to Stockholm?
At least they’ve got chicks there ; - )
1 Like
That all sounds good and I wouldn’t mind a pint of hard cider. Maybe I’ll get the newest booster tomorrow
I think Trump has more than satisfied the intent element. We have FBI interviews of former WH counsel who have recounted first hand convos of them specifically advising Trump to return the stolen documents and Trump acknowledging that he had taken those documents and pointedly refusing to return them because he thought the docs belonged to him while also giving an alternative explanation that he was withholding the docs b/c DOJ was giving information to the Jan 6 committee (typical Trump pettiness). Either explanation demonstrates his knowledge that he took stuff that didn’t belong to him and that he pointedly refused to comply with a demand from the DOJ to return them.
All Garland would have to show a Grand Jury is that the docs were highly confidential and top secret to elicit an indictment. At trial, it would be a pretty easy conviction because the classification aspect isn’t an element of the potential crimes. It becomes more like a simple theft case. He took stuff that didn’t belong to him and hid the docs at his house. Feds got a warrant to search the house and found the contraband. The end.
The reason Garland is waiting, I think, is because he has a few leads on what Trump was doing with the documents he stole. Kash Patel has all but admitted that he was reviewing the information on Trump’s behalf. Patel and others were likely helping Trump evaluate the commercial and extortion value of the top secret material. That’s a crime. In addition, Trump may have taken additional steps to attempt to use the information improperly, either to trade it for money or favors, or to use it to extort others for his personal benefit. If Garland gets that info, we’re talking high treason and that would be un-spinnable.
13 Likes
NERD ALERT!!
4 Likes
I think this may still be under evaluation, so could be part of the delay.
Hell, they’re having enough trouble spinning this story, certainly proven by the number of ridiculous things they’ve said since the story broke. But that hasn’t stopped them from trying and, unbelievably, fundraising off the ‘raid’ and posing threats as to what’ll happen when the GQP regains control of Congress. It won’t matter if anyone is guilty of breaking federal law, as is the case here apparently, but the number of ‘raids’ that will take place is off the charts.
We know what we have to do to prevent this, but still…
1 Like
As a Virginian, I gotta say that every minute he ain’t actively governing is a good thing.
1 Like
That’s gotta hurt
10 Likes
2 Likes
One of the reasons for not releasing the affidavit is to continue having cooperation from the involved witnesses in other ongoing investigations. Once this goes to trial that affidavit is released to TFG’s lawyers and so to the world. His team will be doing their best to spook all witnesses then.
3 Likes
The Poseidon Plant is one of the most technologically advanced and ecologically conscious. It’s built in a city where people care A LOT about the environment. We are a major tourist city, our beaches are pristine. We weighed the pros and cons, and while there are still people unhappy with the plant, it’s working out well and many concerns have turned out to be unfounded
Do we actually have that? That seems like the kind of testimony that would raise lawyer-client privilege and require a court to sort it out.
The Hill talks about counsel being interviewed, but the closest it gets is this:
“It’s not theirs, it’s mine,” the former president allegedly argued about the records.
The NYT is similar, but puts it this way:
“It’s not theirs, it’s mine,” several advisers say Mr. Trump told them.
Neither really says anything directly about what the lawyers said to or heard from Trump. Is there some other source?
1 Like
How is this “undiscovered country” if there are laws in place as to what he can and cannot take from the White House?
Thanks for that. It makes me very, very happy.
Jenna Ellis is a good example of Trump’s penchant for hiring people based on something other than skills. Her legal experience (detailed here) isn’t really a good fit for high-level election litigation. That lack of experience, compounded by her religious zeal in trying to keep Trump in the presidency, made it seemingly inevitable that she would end up in the soup.
2 Likes
I appreciate their efforts and it’s better than nothing but, it will not make an appreciable difference in the water supply. There’s a reason why the Colorado River never makes it to the Gulf of California.
1 Like
Omg. That would be so freaking funny and true to form.
1 Like
The article mentioned that the former WH Counsels recalled direct exchanges with Trump. Two points stood out: he knew he had such info and refused to return it despite direct advice. They talked to him specifically about the National Archives issue.
1 Like
I think the idea here might be that no one has that on audio or video. There’s no recording or wire transmission that substantiates that. That’s the piece that’s missing and would absolutely be the end of this discussion, if it existed.
Direct witness testimony from former WH counsels would be more powerful than video. Trump wouldn’t testify and incriminate himself and Cipollone would bury him on the stand. FBI got those sworn interviews. Those guys have already testified to J6 so they’ll testify again. Trump is screwed at trial if Garland gets an indictment.
3 Likes