|
Is there a good horizontal study on similar "pop quiz randos on the street" in other places? Like obviously the 30 or 50 percent Americans who can't name the branches of government is bad, but is there some fact based way of comparing that to like random Austrians or Eritreans or Cambodians knowledge of their government in the same situation? Like if it's 53 percent here and 60 percent elsewhere vs 53 percent here and 99.9 percent elsewhere thats a big difference!
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Emerges out of a cloud of aerosolized adrenochrome looking beautiful... skin absolutely radiant
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
NYT says it is about Mar-a-Lago. So, they felt pressure to explain what was going on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Mar-A-Lago forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:NYT says it is about Mar-a-Lago. Maybe. Probably best to be clear on what is going on so the media doesn't start making claims that get attributed to the Justice Department.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
You're late, Merrick!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
"My fellow Americans. It is with sadness that I have to tell you today that former president Donald Trump is, what is known in legal terms, a poopie head"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:NYT says it is about Mar-a-Lago. Literally then entire right wing media has been mobilized to pressure them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Maybe. Probably best to be clear on what is going on so the media doesn't start making claims that get attributed to the Justice Department. They aren't generally supposed to comment on active investigations. The one time they broke that rule to inform the public was in 2016 when they announced that they were reopening the Hillary email investigation after they found Anthony Weiner's laptop. So, not a great track record of exceptions to that rule.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
"There's no investigation of Trump. He's innocent and he's actually the real President of the United States." (Garland runs away crying.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:"There's no investigation of Trump. He's innocent and he's actually the real President of the United States." (Garland runs away crying.) Turns out hundreds of D&D and C-Spammers end up being right, The Democratic party was actually controlled opposition this whole time. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They aren't generally supposed to comment on active investigations. The one time they broke that rule to inform the public was in 2016 when they announced that they were reopening the Hillary email investigation after they found Anthony Weiner's laptop. So, not a great track record of exceptions to that rule. I mean fair. I just think extraordinary cases probably require more communication from the government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:"There's no investigation of Trump. He's innocent and he's actually the real President of the United States." (Garland runs away crying.) Counterpoint, I've been told several times that this time for sure JFK jr will reappear in glory to claim the throne his father never lost. Maybe thats what this is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:You realize those people are basically going to be like this: Tiktok just doing Leno bits now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:Tiktok just doing Leno bits now? Now? Tiktok has a wide range of quality
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
It may or may not be related to this statement, but the NYT has some breaking updates about the Mar-a-Lago raid: - Trump was served a subpoena 5 months ago to return the documents, but refused. That was what led to the decision to raid. - Someone at Mar-a-Lago ratted out Trump to the DOJ that he had stashed documents when the National Archives came to take away 15 boxes of Presidential records. The informant told the DOJ there were still more documents there. - The documents were "so sensitive in nature and related to national security" that it took time to confirm they existed and were missing. When they did, they felt they had to act quickly. - The DOJ obtained surveillance footage of the locked room the documents were kept in and discovered that many people had access to it and came in and out. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/11/us/politics/trump-fbi-subpoena.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
It would be very DoJ to come out and make a statement about some completely unrelated case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
So basically Trump was told to return stuff nicely, he didn't, was stupid enough to not get rid of them, and in fact just let everyone in the world take a look at him as an add on to their nightly lobster thermidor
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
Yes but, Hillarys emails, also hunters laptop
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
Some people are snobs and only watch Tooturnttony, but I embrace it all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
Kalli posted:It's a third generational reference to this extremely memed out tweet: The "best" thing about this meme was that this happened a few months later: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/26/texas-woman-killed-feral-hogs
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
I'm trying to imagine what records where worth taking but not destroying and its hard to imagine stuff that isn't either sellable national secrets, aliens, or... what? I guess it's possible Trump just stashed the Kennedy documents in a locker because he felt entitled to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Garland just said he's going to publicly release the warrant and the receipt of property taken under it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Well we already know that the Newsweek article was complete bullshit, Garland personally approved the warrant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-NZJuKOqpM
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I'm trying to imagine what records where worth taking but not destroying and its hard to imagine stuff that isn't either sellable national secrets, aliens, or... what? I guess it's possible Trump just stashed the Kennedy documents in a locker because he felt entitled to them. Something that could be used as blackmail? But yeah he's not a sentimental guy and if it was just incriminating to him he'd just destroy it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Garland personally approved the execution of this warrant and said they never do it lightly. He also directly addressed the 'unfounded attacks' on the FBI, prosecutors and judges of the Justice Department and defended them and the quality of their work. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I'm trying to imagine what records where worth taking but not destroying and its hard to imagine stuff that isn't either sellable national secrets, aliens, or... what? I guess it's possible Trump just stashed the Kennedy documents in a locker because he felt entitled to them. That's the really confusing part. He was actively destroying some documents. So, he's obviously not afraid to do that. I'm not sure what he would keep (and be extremely reluctant to give back, to the point that he is hiding it from the National Archives and sending his lawyer to negotiate with the DOJ) that is also so secret. Maybe personal information or transcripts from White House meetings or of calls with world leaders?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's the really confusing part. I think he was going to sell methods and processes of how we spy on foreign countries to the Saudis (or whoever was the highest bidder).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's the really confusing part. But he has no motivation to keep those. It has to be like, damming stuff on political enemies or stuff he can sell, or something aggrandizing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I think he was going to sell methods and processes of how we spy on foreign countries to the Saudis (or whoever was the highest bidder). I know that the the standard of showing treason is very high but would something like this make the threshold for treason?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
Madkal posted:I know that the the standard of showing treason is very high but would something like this make the threshold for treason? They could easily throw him in jail for life on just espionage charges. I highly doubt anyone would ever go for treason because its so stupidly hard to prove based on how its written.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:But he has no motivation to keep those. That would make the DOJ's decision to request the court make the information public weirder. They don't have to literally make every page public, but if it were something worth money to sell they probably wouldn't make a description of whatever it is public. And I doubt that anything on political enemies would be so dangerous to national security or something the DOJ would make public.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's the really confusing part. What would Putin want from him, is the question. Perhaps communications with the Ukrainian government and/or information about NATO activities in Eastern Europe in prepare for potential war, in the aftermath of the Perfect Phone Call to Zelensky when Trump failed to get him to go with his bullshit. Or 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:22
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:What would Putin want from him, is the question. Perhaps communications with the Ukrainian government and/or information about NATO activities in Eastern Europe in prepare for potential war, in the aftermath of the Perfect Phone Call to Zelensky when Trump failed to get him to go with his bullshit. None of that really sounds like stuff the DOJ would want to be public or documents that Trump would have the only copy of. According to the NYT, they needed time to verify that some of them even existed. Stuff like transcripts or war games wouldn't be something you'd need to verify existed. Some of them were reportedly just a single page in a manilla envelope - you're not going to fit a war plan on there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
The filing requesting the warrant be released is up. https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1557810396861448192
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That would make the DOJ's decision to request the court make the information public weirder. It's not like the DoJ is going to be making the documents themselves public. The motion to unseal only asks to publicize the search warrant itself and "the redacted Property Receipt listing items seized pursuant to the search".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Trump found someone! https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1557807839372087296?s=20&t=qrEBYfqK34Q9Vgg16LuU9Q
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not like the DoJ is going to be making the documents themselves public. I know, I said that in the initial post. The motion says they want to unseal the warrant, the property receipt, and two attachments to the warrant. That is going to reveal the nature of the documents in question. I'm trying to think of what documents could possibly exist that cover all of the following: A) So important to national security that they had to do this. B) So critical to national security, but acknowledging the existence of it isn't an issue. C) One of the few things Trump personally wanted to take out of the White House and keep. D) Something that the DOJ and other officials had to verify even existed. They don't have to release the specific documents, but something like "information on our spies in the Chinese military" would be something that even revealing the nature of the documents would be an issue. So, what would be vague enough to release the attachments and specific reasoning behind what you were looking for to the public, but also secret enough to meet all the criteria of A - D?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
I think it's possible the only unredacted bit we will see is "documents related to national security" or "documents about international relations" which substantially broadens the scope. But I'm rooting for "aliens."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Is there a good horizontal study on similar "pop quiz randos on the street" in other places? Like obviously the 30 or 50 percent Americans who can't name the branches of government is bad, but is there some fact based way of comparing that to like random Austrians or Eritreans or Cambodians knowledge of their government in the same situation? Like if it's 53 percent here and 60 percent elsewhere vs 53 percent here and 99.9 percent elsewhere thats a big difference! Well, given that during the weird anti-COVID restriction protests, most of our morons here in Canada were citing bits of half-understood US constitutional law, and being upset that other sovereign nations were denying them entry, which was clearly the Canadian government's fault for some reason I'm gonna say that the US isn't a huge, huge outlier. EDIT: Every election here, and I'm assuming it's quite similar in most Westminster systems, people seem shocked that we don't actually vote for Prime Minister.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2022 20:45
|
|
