The Orange Clown's Mar-a-lago VISITED by FBI !!!!!!!

[Jackrabbit]

On 8/9/2022 at 2:50 PM, renoskier said:

hey Jack, is there any way you can find common ground with the "elites"?

unity will require some compromise because folks who believe differently from you aren't going away

Good question.   Elites won't reach out until their status is threatened.  

Right now we are seeing a visceral elitist reaction because there is fear.  The elite only have to offer trinkets...and then business as usual.

The only way to deal with this is a lot less govt spending...and that is not likey to change anytime soon

 

 

[Nevada Convert]

On 8/9/2022 at 1:12 PM, grandjean87 said:

Intent is required to charge under 18 U.S.C 973 (f).  It also appears to be a specific intent at that per a WWII era Court ruling.  Feel free to research.  

I was thinking in terms of a negligence case where intent wouldn’t matter.

“In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff (government) must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff (government).”

[RSF]

On 8/9/2022 at 4:18 PM, FresnoFacts said:

Cracks in the GOP. We'll see if they widen or if those not toeing the line backtrack under Trumper pressure.

First no comment from McConnell. Now Chris Christie says:

 

Nothing new.  McConnell's been walking that tightrope since before Trump left office, and Christie's been unafraid to speak his mind for a while now.

[UNLV2001]

 

[UNLV2001]

[RSF]

 

[UNLV2001]

 

[grandjean87]

On 8/9/2022 at 3:19 PM, Nevada Convert said:

I was thinking in terms of a negligence case where intent wouldn’t matter.

“In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff (government) must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff (government).”

The term “gross negligence” appears the bar in the text of 18 U.S. C 793 (f), but the ruling in Gorin v United States (1941) seems to have narrowed the law to require intent specifically to benefit a foreign power.  Apparently, only one case of 793 (f) has ever been brought up since ‘41 based on gross negligence.  Plea deal to a lesser charge was the result. This is a good summary. 

https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

[smltwnrckr]

On 8/9/2022 at 2:19 PM, Jackrabbit said:

 

FIFY

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 8/9/2022 at 3:20 PM, UNLV2001 said:

 

 

Uhm, all FBI "raids" require warrants.

It is arguing over semantics.  

[RSF]

On 8/9/2022 at 4:40 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Uhm, all FBI "raids" require warrants.

It is arguing over semantics.  

I've been accused of arguing over some antics...

[UNLV2001]

[Jackrabbit]

On 8/9/2022 at 3:38 PM, smltwnrckr said:

FIFY

Disagree...this is just more bread and circus.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 8/9/2022 at 3:50 PM, Jackrabbit said:

Disagree...this is just more bread and circus.

If what you are saying this is, were to be true, it would be the opposite of bread and circuses.  

[smltwnrckr]

On 8/9/2022 at 2:50 PM, Jackrabbit said:

Disagree...this is just more bread and circus.

Not read a ton of Marx, have you?

[azgreg]

 

[UNLV2001]

 

[SharkTanked]

 

[UNLV2001]

 

[retrofade]