Donald Trump Announces 2016 White House Bid

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
What about Democratic 'election deniers'?
Author of the article:Larry Elder
Publishing date:Aug 20, 2022 • 21 hours ago • 3 minute read • Join the conversation
After the recent annual Conservative Political Action Conference convention in Dallas, CNN published a video with the following headline: “Election deniers take over CPAC after primary victories.”

In a recent appearance on CBS, Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who voted to impeach former president Donald Trump and serves on the House Jan. 6 committee, said: “The only thing we need for democracy to survive is the knowledge that you can vote, that that vote counts, and we live with the winner and loser. If half the country believes that that wasn’t accurate, you can’t expect democracy to survive.”


Where was this concern about “election deniers” when Democrats have complained about “stolen” elections?

In 2018, Democrat Stacey Abrams claimed she lost her Georgia gubernatorial race due to voter “suppression.” In her speech after the election was called for her opponent, she refused to concede. Three years later, she told CNN that her opponent “won under the rules of the game at the time, but the game was rigged against the voters of Georgia.” A USA Today fact check said, “There is little empirical evidence (opponent Georgia then-Secretary of State Brian) Kemp stole the election.

Former vice-president Al Gore, in a Washington Post interview two years after his presidential defeat to George W. Bush, said, “I believe that if everyone in Florida who tried to vote had had his or her vote counted properly, that I would have won.”


In January 2001, several House Democrats voted against certifying the election results of 2000. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said in a joint session of Congress: “The objection is in writing, and I do not care that it is not signed by a member of the Senate (as is necessary to force a Senate vote on the challenge.)”

Had Ohio, in 2004, gone to Democrat John Kerry, he would have become president. President George W. Bush carried it 51% to 49%, a margin of about 100,000 votes. But Jan. 6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., on Jan. 6, 2005, joined 30 other House Democrats and Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in refusing to certify Ohio’s presidential election results, claiming “voter suppression” in addition to arguing, also with no basis in fact, that the Diebold voting machines were manipulated to re-elect Bush. The Senate voted 74-1 against the Democrats’ challenge. Though Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., voted against the challenge, he praised Boxer in 2005 for making it: “I thank her for doing that, because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one state, but in many states.”


Hillary Clinton consistently calls the presidential election of 2016 “stolen” and described then-president Trump as “illegitimate.” Former president Jimmy Carter said in 2019: “I think a full investigation would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.” New York Attorney General Letitia James said she “will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate president.”

About the 2016 election, former Obama Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson testified under oath that, while the Russians tried to manipulate voting machines, there is no evidence that a single vote tally was changed.

Nevertheless, a 2018 YouGov poll found 66% of Democrats believe that Russia changed vote tallies to elect Trump in 2016. A 2018 Gallup poll found 78% of Democrats believe that Russian interference in 2016 “changed the outcome of the election” in favour of Trump.

About the 2020 election, CNN politics editor Chris Cillizza wrote: “76% of self-identified Republicans in a new national Quinnipiac University poll. That’s the number of Republicans who said they believe there was ‘widespread fraud in the 2020 election.'” As noted, a greater percentage of Democrats, 78%, consider 2016’s presidential election to have been “stolen” compared to 76% of Republicans who feel likewise about 2020.

Now what?

— Larry Elder is a best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
I put a search on google.....
What time does Sun E news com out?..........
Answer........What time of the morning does Spammy start posting..........
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
Trump seeks to temporarily block FBI from reviewing items seized from Florida home
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Sarah N. Lynch
Publishing date:Aug 22, 2022 • 4 hours ago • 3 minute read • Join the conversation

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump on Monday asked a federal court to temporarily block the FBI from reviewing the materials it seized two weeks ago from his Florida home, until a special master can be appointed to oversee the review.


Trump’s motion, filed in federal court in West Palm Beach, Florida, also demanded that the U.S. Justice Department provide him a more detailed property receipt outlining items the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago home during its Aug. 8 search, and asked investigators to return any items outside the scope of the search warrant.

“Politics cannot be allowed to impact the administration of justice,” the filing says. “Law enforcement is a shield that protects Americans. It cannot be used as a weapon for political purposes,” it added.

A special master can sometimes be appointed in highly sensitive cases to go through seized materials and ensure that investigators do not review privileged information.

When FBI agents had searched the homes of Trump’s former lawyers Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan requested the appointment of a special master.


Trump’s request was assigned to U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, whom Trump appointed to the bench. A Justice Department spokesman said prosecutors would file their response in court.

“The Aug. 8 search warrant at Mar-a-Lago was authorized by a federal court upon the required finding of probable cause,” Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said.


Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, of U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach and who approved the warrant, is weighing whether to require the Justice Department to release a redacted copy of the affidavit laying out evidence for probable cause to search Trump’s home.

The Justice Department at a court hearing last week opposed the affidavit’s release, saying it would provide a “roadmap” of its investigation and possibly chill witness cooperation.


In a court order filed on Monday, Reinhart said he agreed those were legitimate concerns, but said he wants to explore whether there is a “less onerous alternative to sealing the entire document.”

The Justice Department has until noon on Thursday to provide Reinhart under seal a redacted copy of the document that he could potentially release to the public.

The Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago marked a significant escalation in one of the many federal and state investigations Trump faces from his time in office and in private business.

After Trump and his allies complained in the media that the search was politically motivated, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland asked the court to release a redacted copy of the search warrant and property receipt outlining the items taken.


The U.S. government has recovered more than 300 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago, including material from the CIA, the National Security Agency and the FBI, the New York Times reported on Monday, citing multiple people briefed on the matter. The items include material recovered by the National Archives in January and documents that Trump’s aides gave to the Justice Department in June, the newspaper reported.

The Justice Department did not immediately provide comment, nor did aides to the former president.

The search is part of a federal investigation into whether Trump illegally removed documents when he left office in January 2021 after losing the presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.

During its search the FBI seized 11 sets of classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, some of which were labeled “top secret” – the highest level of classification reserved for the most closely held U.S. national security information and which can only be viewed in special government facilities.

It is unclear whether Trump waited too long to seek the appointment of a special master.

Last week, Trump released a redacted Aug. 15 email he received from Jay Bratt, the Justice Department’s head of counterintelligence, who indicated he had deployed a “filter” team of agents tasked with weeding out privileged materials.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
fffas i have already said there is an ignore feature. 💡
There you go..........
Follow your own advice
1661254582594.pngS. S. S.
as i have already said there is an ignore feature. 💡

Trump seeks to temporarily block FBI from reviewing items seized from Florida home
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Sarah N. Lynch
Publishing date:Aug 22, 2022 • 4 hours ago • 3 minute read • Join the conversation

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump on Monday asked a federal court to temporarily block the FBI from reviewing the materials it seized two weeks ago from his Florida home, until a special master can be appointed to oversee the review.


Trump’s motion, filed in federal court in West Palm Beach, Florida, also demanded that the U.S. Justice Department provide him a more detailed property receipt outlining items the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago home during its Aug. 8 search, and asked investigators to return any items outside the scope of the search warrant.

“Politics cannot be allowed to impact the administration of justice,” the filing says. “Law enforcement is a shield that protects Americans. It cannot be used as a weapon for political purposes,” it added.

A special master can sometimes be appointed in highly sensitive cases to go through seized materials and ensure that investigators do not review privileged information.

When FBI agents had searched the homes of Trump’s former lawyers Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan requested the appointment of a special master.


Trump’s request was assigned to U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, whom Trump appointed to the bench. A Justice Department spokesman said prosecutors would file their response in court.

“The Aug. 8 search warrant at Mar-a-Lago was authorized by a federal court upon the required finding of probable cause,” Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said.


Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, of U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach and who approved the warrant, is weighing whether to require the Justice Department to release a redacted copy of the affidavit laying out evidence for probable cause to search Trump’s home.

The Justice Department at a court hearing last week opposed the affidavit’s release, saying it would provide a “roadmap” of its investigation and possibly chill witness cooperation.


In a court order filed on Monday, Reinhart said he agreed those were legitimate concerns, but said he wants to explore whether there is a “less onerous alternative to sealing the entire document.”

The Justice Department has until noon on Thursday to provide Reinhart under seal a redacted copy of the document that he could potentially release to the public.

The Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago marked a significant escalation in one of the many federal and state investigations Trump faces from his time in office and in private business.

After Trump and his allies complained in the media that the search was politically motivated, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland asked the court to release a redacted copy of the search warrant and property receipt outlining the items taken.


The U.S. government has recovered more than 300 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago, including material from the CIA, the National Security Agency and the FBI, the New York Times reported on Monday, citing multiple people briefed on the matter. The items include material recovered by the National Archives in January and documents that Trump’s aides gave to the Justice Department in June, the newspaper reported.

The Justice Department did not immediately provide comment, nor did aides to the former president.

The search is part of a federal investigation into whether Trump illegally removed documents when he left office in January 2021 after losing the presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.

During its search the FBI seized 11 sets of classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, some of which were labeled “top secret” – the highest level of classification reserved for the most closely held U.S. national security information and which can only be viewed in special government facilities.

It is unclear whether Trump waited too long to seek the appointment of a special master.

Last week, Trump released a redacted Aug. 15 email he received from Jay Bratt, the Justice Department’s head of counterintelligence, who indicated he had deployed a “filter” team of agents tasked with weeding out privileged materials.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
U.S. agency identified 700-plus pages of classified records at Trump's home
Large quantity of classified material in 15 boxes recovered in January

Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Sarah N. Lynch
Publishing date:Aug 23, 2022 • 12 hours ago • 3 minute read • Join the conversation
The three page itemized list of property seized in the execution of a search warrant by the FBI at former U.S. President
WASHINGTON — The U.S. National Archives discovered more than 700 pages of classified documents at Donald Trump’s Florida home in addition to material seized this month by FBI agents, according to a newly disclosed May letter the records agency sent to the Republican former president’s attorney.


The large quantity of classified material in 15 boxes recovered in January by the National Archives and Records Administration, some marked as “top secret,” provides more insight into what led to the FBI’s court-authorized Aug. 8 search of Trump’s residence at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach.


The agency is responsible for preserving government records.

The May 10 letter was sent by Acting U.S. Archivist Debra Steidel Wall to Trump attorney Evan Corcoran. It was released late on Monday by John Solomon, a conservative journalist who Trump authorized in June to access his presidential records. The National Archives posted a copy on its website on Tuesday.

“Among the materials in the boxes are over 100 documents with classification markings, comprising more than 700 pages. Some include the highest levels of classification, including Special Access Program (SAP) materials,” Wall’s letter said, referring to security protocols reserved for some of the country’s most closely held secrets.


The letter contains additional information about Trump’s handling of classified materials and his efforts to delay federal officials from reviewing the documents.

The letter shows that Trump’s legal team repeatedly tried to stall the Archives from letting the FBI and intelligence officials review the materials, saying he needed more time to determine if any of the records were covered by a doctrine called executive privilege that enables a president to shield some records.

President Joe Biden’s administration – specifically the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel – has determined that the materials were not covered by executive privilege. It found “there is no precedent” for a former president to shield records from a sitting president using executive privilege when the materials in question legally belong to the federal government, according to the letter.


Even after Trump returned the 15 boxes to the Archives, the Justice Department still suspected he had more classified material.

The Aug. 8 search was part of a federal investigation into whether Trump illegally removed documents from the White House when he left office in January 2021 after his failed 2020 re-election bid and whether he tried to obstruct the government’s investigation into the removal of the records.

In a lawsuit Trump filed late on Monday against the Justice Department over the search, he said he was served a grand jury subpoena on May 11 seeking additional classified records.

On June 3, the department’s head of counterintelligence and three FBI agents visited Mar-a-Lago to inspect a storage room and collect additional records. Trump received a second subpoena later that month seeking surveillance footage from security cameras, which he also provided.


During the Aug. 8 search, FBI agents recovered more than 20 additional boxes containing about 11 sets of records marked as classified.

Trump’s legal team waited for two weeks before filing his lawsuit, which asks a federal judge to block the FBI from reviewing the seized materials until a special master can be appointed. A special master is an independent third party sometimes appointed in sensitive cases to review documents seized in a search, particularly if the records could be protected by attorney-client privilege.

The Justice Department previously sought a special master following FBI searches at the homes and offices of Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen, two of Trump’s former attorneys.

Legal experts said the Trump document investigation differs from those cases because the records at issue belong to the federal government.

“The idea that executive privilege in some way would restrict (National Archives) access to the records, or the FBI’s access to the records, sort of just misconstrues what executive privilege is,” said Jonathan Shaub, a former Justice Department attorney who teaches at the University of Kentucky’s law school.

“The person who gets to decide whether executive privilege is asserted is the president, so the special master would be Biden,” Shaub added. “That is the only person who is legitimately able to decide whether turning something over to the FBI would harm the national interests.”
1661327160310.png
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
Judge orders unsealing of redacted affidavit
Deadline set for noon Friday for blacked-out version of document

Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Eric Tucker
Publishing date:Aug 25, 2022 • 10 hours ago • 3 minute read • Join the conversation

WASHINGTON — A judge ordered the Justice Department on Thursday to make public a redacted version of the affidavit it relied on when federal agents searched the Florida estate of former President Donald Trump to look for classified documents.


The directive from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart came hours after federal law enforcement officials submitted under seal the portions of the affidavit that they want to keep secret as their investigation moves forward. The judge set a deadline of noon Friday for a redacted, or blacked-out, version of the document.


The order means the public could soon get at least some additional details about what led FBI officials to search Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8 as part of an investigation into classified documents being retained at the Palm Beach property. Documents already made public as part of the investigation show that the FBI retrieved from the property 11 sets of classified documents, including information marked at the top secret level.


Search warrant affidavits typically contain vital information about an investigation, with agents spelling out why they want to search a particular property and why they believe they are likely to find evidence of a potential crime there.

In this case, though, the redactions proposed by the Justice Department are likely to be extensive given the sensitivity of the investigation and unprecedented nature of the search, lessening the chance that the public will receive a detailed glimpse of the basis for the search or the direction of the probe.

The department had earlier contested arguments by media organizations to make any portion of the affidavit public, saying the disclosure could contain private information about witnesses and about investigative tactics. But Reinhart, acknowledging the extraordinary public interest in the investigation, said he was disinclined to keep the entire document sealed and told federal officials to submit to him in private the redactions it wanted to make.


Even so, he acknowledged that the blacked-out portions might be so extensive as to leave the public version of the document without any meaningful information.

In his order Thursday, he said he was satisfied “that the Government has met its burden of showing that its proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve the Government’s legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation and are the least onerous alternative to sealing the entire Affidavit.”

Multiple news media organizations, including The Associated Press, argued in court last week for the disclosure of the affidavit, citing the extraordinary public interest in the federal search of a former president’s home. Trump and some of his supporters have also encouraged the document’s release.


After the Justice Department submitted its filing under seal on Thursday, the media coalition responded by asking the judge to unseal portions of the department’s brief and to direct the government, “going forward,” to file publicly a redacted version of any sealed document it submits. The groups noted that significant information about the investigation is already public.

“At a minimum, any portions of the Brief that recite those facts about the investigation, without revealing additional ones not yet publicly available — in addition to any other portions that pose no threat to the investigation — should be unsealed,” the news organizations wrote.

They added, “If and when additional facts come to light and are confirmed to be accurate, or certain facts no longer pose a threat to the investigation for any other reason, there is no justification for maintaining them under seal either.”
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,568
3,290
113
Freeland hits back at Kushner following book release, calls Trump a bully
Author of the article:Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Publishing date:Aug 25, 2022 • 7 hours ago • 1 minute read • 7 Comments

OTTAWA — Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland says former U.S. President Donald Trump used “bully” tactics during negotiations on a new North American free-trade agreement more than two years ago.


Freeland was asked Thursday to respond to a characterization of herself as a frustrating and difficult negotiator in a new memoir by Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner.


“When you’re threatened by a bully the answer is not to cave in,” she said. “The answer is to be united, and to stand strong.”

She initially linked the notion to Ukraine standing up to Russian President Vladimir Putin but quickly said she wasn’t trying in any way to compare the plight of Ukrainians to Canada’s dealings with its biggest trading partner.

In his book Breaking History, Kushner accused Freeland of purposely stalling negotiations and speaking publicly about the talks against the wishes of the White House.

He said Canada, with Freeland at the helm, engaged in “an increasingly frustrating series of negotiations” and “refusing to commit to any substantive changes.”


He was also critical of her for leaving the negotiations and holding press conferences with Canadian journalists “uttering platitudes like ‘I get paid in Canadian dollars, not U.S. dollars.”’

Freeland didn’t directly confront any of Kushner’s assertions but said Canada’s best asset in those negotiations was a united front on the talks presented by Conservative premiers and the federal Liberal government.

That united front included public statements backing the government against Trump by then-Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and Ontario Premier Doug Ford.

“Canada’s Conservatives continue to support the Prime Minister’s efforts to make the case for free trade. Divisive rhetoric and personal attacks from the US administration are clearly unhelpful.,” Scheer tweeted on June 10, 2018.

That came after Trump called Trudeau “very dishonest and weak.”

“We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister and the people of Canada,” Ford said, responding to the same insult.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,839
113
It wasn't a very good deal. And we got screwed in the european deal. She's just not a very good negotiator.