tvc184

Okay. No matter what, they should be treated the same. Not have one unlawfully indicted by an illegally appointed prosecutor and another given a pass due to age. I don’t think the Times v. CIA says what you think or the ABA is referencing. That case has nothing to do with a president retaining classified information. The idea that the president has to follow some kind of consent or law from Congress seems blatantly unconstitutional. The president as commander-in-chief and the head of the Executive Branch has sole authority and discretion over papers. Congress doesn’t grant him that authority, the Constitution does. In Times, the newspaper is claiming to want to see classified documents that may or may not exist. Trump made a tweet where he may or may not have referenced a covert CIA program and the Times claimed that for the purpose of FOIA, that was a de facto de-classification. That is ludicrous and the Second Circuit agreed. As far as Congress giving the president hoops to jump through to himself to do what he wants with papers, that is unconstitutional (in my opinion) in the separation of powers. Congress doesn’t give permission for the president to run the Executive Branch or to be the commander-in-chief. Those are constitutional and cannot be removed or altered by Congress. That is a constitutional separation of powers issue. An example was during the first Trump impeachment. Some Republicans were verbally calling for the whole thing to be shut down by the Supreme Court. Even if Trump did what was claimed, it didn’t rise to “high crimes and misdemeanors”. After all, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was to sit as the judge at the Senate trial. Chief Justice Roberts responded by making a comment. Neither he nor the Supreme Court could interfere in any manner. It would be unconstitutional under the separation of powers. The Constitution says that the House of Representatives has the sole authority to issue an impeachment and does not define high crimes and misdemeanors. Since there is no definition and the House alone can impeach, the House can do as it wishes for whatever reason it wishes. The Constitution then says that the Senate shall hold a trial and determine the issue. There is nothing for the Supreme Court to determine as it is a constitutional separation of powers. Due to that separation, there are some things that no branch can control over another. If the Supreme Court makes a ruling, for example, Congress cannot vote to overrule that decision. That would be a violation of the separation of powers. If the Speaker of the House won’t bring something up for a vote, the president can’t order the Speaker to do so. That would be a violation of the separation of powers. By the same reasoning, can the president have complete discretion over documents…. if he gets permission from Congress by following their rules? Uhhhh…. no. For everyone else (as in Times v. CIA), yes they need proof of declassification because THEY don’t have executive authority. They can’t just say, well … the president mentioned it in the hallway. Congress can absolutely set rules on when members of the government can release or determine if the president has declassified something. So the Times v. CIA settles nothing. Does the “formal procedure” apply to the president? At the very least, the separation of powers on classified documents is yet to be determined by the Supreme Court. Biden has no such authority to fall back on or to be answered by the Supreme Court.

It means, okay, I will take another look at your guy. A month later he will come to the conclusion that, I gave the local candidate that extra look but he isn’t our guy.

[Hidden Content]

Well, he’s just a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. That is a quote from the prosecutor in the exact same kind of case as against Trump, the unauthorized removal of classified information. There is a difference however. As president had the authority to remove any documents or clear their classification. As VP, Biden had no such authority. This was when Biden was the VP 8 years ago. Was he just a well meaning old guy 8 years ago? How much worse is his “poor memory”? Political? NO WAY!! 🤣🤣🤣

If a person gets off a shot at his intended target, it’s a failure. Each part of a team has responsibilities independent of the others. Parts of the team could have been perfect yet the team as a whole screwed up. To let a guy get on the roof within a football field and in open view is a failure, period. Was it the responsibility of the agents right next to Trump? Was their part of the protection to scan the horizon or to look for people up close who might pull a weapon or directly attack Trump? It was a horrific breakdown in security. Was it the fault of the agents up close? Probably not. By the time that they heard the shot, the bullet moving 4 times the speed of sound had already passed.

I just hope it's not some whackjob who brings nothing to the table but a good "yes sir, mister Trump! You're right again, sir!" A whack job? No. A VP who says yessir to what the president says? Absolutely. The VP is a direct representative of the president and should at least publicly be a yes man or woman. Look at Harris. As much as I dislike that cackling word salad, look at the job she has trying to make public comments supporting Biden which she is expected to do. In that situation she is correctly doing her job. Publicly she has to say yessir, good job sir.

If she was a former special agent in charge at the SS and left to go into private business, I can understand the appointment. She might not have been the best candidate and a DEI hire but that is totally different than hiring someone who has no law enforcement experience and has not worked for anyone except corporations. As far as the on scene agents (assuming they were actually SS), they did okay. I actually thought that they were a little slow to react but that could just be the appearance from the video. A different angle might show a better response. It was interesting to see them put their fists up when surrounding Trump to cover gaps in their coverage around him. They seemed to respond to training (which we should expect) on dignitary protection. I haven’t seen enough good video on the actual transitioning him off the stage and into the van. I surely don’t knot their protocol. From the videos now being shown of the shooter on the roof crawling around (assuming they are real), the response was unacceptable. I think that I saw a video last night right before I fell asleep that the FBI confirmed that a police officer confronted the shooter on the roof. The shooter pointed the rifle at the officer and he backed down and the officer went the other side of the roof. Again without video to see exactly what happened and what kind of time frames, we really can’t say but it looks like another potential failure. Ducking for cover facing a rifle is certainly appropriate but did the officer try to re-engage? Did he call for help and make notifications on radio that there was a likelihood of an assassination attempt in progress? It could all have happened within a couple of seconds but without the correct information, it leaves another potential huge mistake. The bottom line of that there is so much that is not known and almost certainly some of the reports are false or taken out of context. I doubt that we will ever know the complete story but there sure seemed to be some huge gaps in protection and the response to the shooter. If we have seen the videos of the shooter crawling around in the roof as taken by people on the ground with cell phones….. If those are true… 😳😳😳

DOJ unlawfully appointed special counsel against Trump. DOJ unlawfully used federal law against several hundred J6 defendants with hundreds of cases dismissed. Things that make you go hmmmm…. I was reading on CNN just now that… Trump claims this is political attacks but can’t produce evidence…. If the DOJ is making that many errors against average citizens, there are some big problems in the DOJ.

I have been reading about that and didn’t know if it was true. Is the head of the SS really just a corporate security employee prior?

That is registering. We don’t pre register as in many states. In some states I have read the law. It says you have to declare by December 31 or which primary you intend to vote on for the next year. Being locked in to a psrty only lasts for one year. If not, you can’t vote. In Texas, you don’t get locked into a party until the day you vote in a primary. Then like in the pre-register states, you are locked into that party primary until December 31. So in some states you have to declare a party before January 1 and in Texas it isn’t until that day if you decide to vote in a primary. Texas doesn’t per se call it registering but it is identical minus a mandatory date to declare. Texas has open declaration dates and others have a deadline. If you look at the voter rolls then except on rare occasion, mine says Democrat. I haven’t voted for a Democrat in statewide or national elections in 40 years. The shooter being registered anything is meaningless.

And I’m a registered Democrat. That only means which primary you voted in. That includes votes for or against a candidate.

Antifa member? Reported on some sites…

I have read that a person was arrested and another that said a person was “down”. I usually translate that to, no one has a clue and at this point everything is a rumor or speculation.

I have known Jimmy for over 30 years but never worked for him. I have worked dignitary security with him. I have never known him to be anything but a professional police officer but certainly working for him may not be the same. Through my many contacts with BPD, I have never heard his name brought as a problem. I also know that working with city council issues myself, their agendas and police goals are not always the same. About 20 years ago I was speaking with another sergeant about officers assigned per shift and complaining about poor response times due to staffing allocations per shift (I believe called a watch at BPD like 3rd watch). Not in hiring more officers but simply shifting manpower around. I learned a valuable lesson during that discussion. The other sergeant who was junior to me said something like, “You were looking at it as providing police service in a timely manner. The City Council is looking at it as an money issue”. He was correct. There was a chance that once or twice a week they might have to pay a couple of hours overtime due to a serious call coming in late in the shift. I was looking at it as providing a service to the citizens and they were looking at it as possibly costing $200 more per week out of a $21 million annual budget. Our goals and their goals don’t always match. They will say that they do though.

Sometimes there is a definite need to go outside to change an agency’s culture and behavior. Been there, done that. It is also true that if there are no major problems within the agency, going outside is likely not the best option. If BPD doesn’t have an internal issue with culture, going outside probably means that someone is looking to check boxes. Look at some of the fiascos of larger cities in this country having issues with going outside to hire a new chief.

Trial judge ends the trial of Alec Baldwin. The state withheld evidence favorable to Baldwin. Dismissal with prejudice which usually means that the case cannot be refiled. Case closed.

Certainly….. but just like the right wingers who call for abolishing the ATF, getting rid of certain federal courts, term limits, blah blah blah….. The problem is that the only people who can do that are the same people who put those in place to begin with.

I might get my last one done tomorrow. Maybe have an inspection receipt burning party, kind of like a mortgage burning party. I hope they don’t find anything wrong and change me a lot of extra money to fix it!! 🤣🤣🤣

All elections are a choice between the lesser of evils… always. If you never want to take part, great.

Then why is Trump leading in almost all electoral college votes at the moment and why all the infighting amongst the Democrats if anyone can win?

The vp has no constitutional authority except presiding over the Senate to cast a vote only if it breaks a tie and counting ballots after an election. A president under the Constitution is 1. commander-in-chief 2. can issue executive orders 3. has the sole discretion to nominate federal judges and cabinet members 4. has the sole authority to make treaty agreements with foreign governments. The vp has the 1. constitutional authority to vote on the Senate if needed to break a tie. So I guess if someone tried to file charges against the vp for voting in a tied issue, the vp would have immunity from that vote choice.

I will add this, the immunity ruling has brought out some of the most ridiculous statements and accusations. Like most times, headlines rule the day and the media sure doesn’t fact check any of that. It would be great for the Facebook fact checkers shut down a majority of the claims with their false information stamp. This example illustrates have fact checking only goes one way. The Supreme Court mentioned three situations. Constitutional authority, executive authority and no authority. Two of the three can potentially have no immunity depending on the situation. So… IMMUNITY- 1. Absolutely 2. Maybe not 3. None People: (a) Get to #1 and quit reading (b) Read and understand it but lie for political reasons (c) Rely on headlines and comments from people in (b)

I had cars for 15 years where that didn’t exist and at other times, no one ever knew. I honestly can’t imagine bringing a car in for inspection and not knowing that everything is working.

I have never had a vehicle inspection fail since I got my first car in 1974, using whatever inspection station I happen to be by when I notice it. I must have missed the ALWAYS for 50 years and about 100 vehicles. Maybe keeping a car in better condition???

That is nonsense. According to kff.org, Blacks have received at least one dose of the vaccine as of July, 2022 smaller than any other racial or ethnic group. Several states did not report those statistics and the ones that did have mostly stopped reporting. Things that make you go hmmm… But let’s not digress. I don’t think anyone would argue that Blacks have far an away the highest percentage of Democratic voters, usually 90% or higher. Yet when it comes to Covid vaccines, they are in the smallest group. This is quoted from the KFF article; Across the 36 states for which a total vaccination rate could be calculated by race/ethnicity as of July 11, 2022, 87% of Asian, 67% of Hispanic, and 64%of White people had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose, higher than the rate for Black people (59%). I can assume by your logic, about 40% of those Blacks who refused to get the vaccine, will be voting Trump this election. Those pesky Black conservatives again……