JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[Typical Lax Dad]

Remember Benghazi!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/0 ... tan-348336

Let the hearings begin!!

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pent ... -veterans/



https://taskandpurpose.com/.amp/news/ta ... can-troops

Hey, don’t kneel in protest.

[old salt]

Who can you believe, if not current & past Taliban leaders ?

[old salt]

'Russia paying a bounty to Afghans for American military deaths' is the hoax we saw coming a billion miles away.

Going to disappoint a few Democrats to hear who you lefties are in bed with promoting it though...

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/hou ... d-germany/

Thanks for posting...a portion:

Good stuff. More from the Glennzilla :
...left-right anti-war coalition is no match for the war machine composed of the establishment wings of both parties and the military and intelligence community that continue to use selective, illegal leaks to sabotage any plans to reduce the U.S. military presence around the world. That the Democrats have spent a full decade desperately recruiting former military and intelligence officials to serve as their Congressional candidates (both Congressman Crow, Liz Cheney’s co-sponsor on the Afghanistan amendment, and the anti-German-troop-withdrawal Congressman Gallego, are both Iraq War veterans) has only made the party even more militaristic.

Combined with the fact that Democrats are increasingly merging with and being led by the Bush-era neocons and other Bush/Cheney operatives in creating such jingoistic and militaristic messaging campaigns as the beloved-by-liberals Lincoln Project, and that Biden is clearly trying to run to Trump’s right on foreign policy with ads accusing him of being too soft on China and linking him to Castro and Chavez, the picture is clear. It should come as absolutely no surprise that House Democrats are finding common cause with Liz Cheney and other GOP warmongers to block any efforts to reduce even moderately the footprint of the U.S. military in the world or its decades-long posture of endless war.

You are anti-military

I'm against bogging down our military in a indefinite, no win, situation, because our politicians can't agree to pull out.

19 years is long enough. Do you think our people in the military want to spend their entire career deploying there ?

[youthathletics]

'Russia paying a bounty to Afghans for American military deaths' is the hoax we saw coming a billion miles away.

Going to disappoint a few Democrats to hear who you lefties are in bed with promoting it though...

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/hou ... d-germany/

Thanks for posting...a portion:

Good stuff. More from the Glennzilla :
...left-right anti-war coalition is no match for the war machine composed of the establishment wings of both parties and the military and intelligence community that continue to use selective, illegal leaks to sabotage any plans to reduce the U.S. military presence around the world. That the Democrats have spent a full decade desperately recruiting former military and intelligence officials to serve as their Congressional candidates (both Congressman Crow, Liz Cheney’s co-sponsor on the Afghanistan amendment, and the anti-German-troop-withdrawal Congressman Gallego, are both Iraq War veterans) has only made the party even more militaristic.

Combined with the fact that Democrats are increasingly merging with and being led by the Bush-era neocons and other Bush/Cheney operatives in creating such jingoistic and militaristic messaging campaigns as the beloved-by-liberals Lincoln Project, and that Biden is clearly trying to run to Trump’s right on foreign policy with ads accusing him of being too soft on China and linking him to Castro and Chavez, the picture is clear. It should come as absolutely no surprise that House Democrats are finding common cause with Liz Cheney and other GOP warmongers to block any efforts to reduce even moderately the footprint of the U.S. military in the world or its decades-long posture of endless war.

You are anti-military

I'm against bogging down our military in a indefinite, no win, situation, because our politicians can't agree to pull out.

19 years is long enough. Do you think our people in the military want to spend their entire career deploying there ?

Setting aside the boots on the ground.

As you well know...the U.S. war-machine drives much of our economy, and we all know the profiteering of defense related business keeps cash flowing, globally. Turning this conversation political, one can argue it is the common denominator between the economy of BHO Admin (to include deadbeat Rs) and Trump. BHO was more fiscally tight w/the military, whereas Trump was overtly pro-spending for the military..through 2020.

[Typical Lax Dad]

'Russia paying a bounty to Afghans for American military deaths' is the hoax we saw coming a billion miles away.

Going to disappoint a few Democrats to hear who you lefties are in bed with promoting it though...

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/hou ... d-germany/

Thanks for posting...a portion:

Good stuff. More from the Glennzilla :
...left-right anti-war coalition is no match for the war machine composed of the establishment wings of both parties and the military and intelligence community that continue to use selective, illegal leaks to sabotage any plans to reduce the U.S. military presence around the world. That the Democrats have spent a full decade desperately recruiting former military and intelligence officials to serve as their Congressional candidates (both Congressman Crow, Liz Cheney’s co-sponsor on the Afghanistan amendment, and the anti-German-troop-withdrawal Congressman Gallego, are both Iraq War veterans) has only made the party even more militaristic.

Combined with the fact that Democrats are increasingly merging with and being led by the Bush-era neocons and other Bush/Cheney operatives in creating such jingoistic and militaristic messaging campaigns as the beloved-by-liberals Lincoln Project, and that Biden is clearly trying to run to Trump’s right on foreign policy with ads accusing him of being too soft on China and linking him to Castro and Chavez, the picture is clear. It should come as absolutely no surprise that House Democrats are finding common cause with Liz Cheney and other GOP warmongers to block any efforts to reduce even moderately the footprint of the U.S. military in the world or its decades-long posture of endless war.

You are anti-military

I'm against bogging down our military in a indefinite, no win, situation, because our politicians can't agree to pull out.

19 years is long enough. Do you think our people in the military want to spend their entire career deploying there ?

People in the military take orders. What “they” want is irrelevant.

[old salt]

'Russia paying a bounty to Afghans for American military deaths' is the hoax we saw coming a billion miles away.

Going to disappoint a few Democrats to hear who you lefties are in bed with promoting it though...

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/hou ... d-germany/

Thanks for posting...a portion:

Good stuff. More from the Glennzilla :
...left-right anti-war coalition is no match for the war machine composed of the establishment wings of both parties and the military and intelligence community that continue to use selective, illegal leaks to sabotage any plans to reduce the U.S. military presence around the world. That the Democrats have spent a full decade desperately recruiting former military and intelligence officials to serve as their Congressional candidates (both Congressman Crow, Liz Cheney’s co-sponsor on the Afghanistan amendment, and the anti-German-troop-withdrawal Congressman Gallego, are both Iraq War veterans) has only made the party even more militaristic.

Combined with the fact that Democrats are increasingly merging with and being led by the Bush-era neocons and other Bush/Cheney operatives in creating such jingoistic and militaristic messaging campaigns as the beloved-by-liberals Lincoln Project, and that Biden is clearly trying to run to Trump’s right on foreign policy with ads accusing him of being too soft on China and linking him to Castro and Chavez, the picture is clear. It should come as absolutely no surprise that House Democrats are finding common cause with Liz Cheney and other GOP warmongers to block any efforts to reduce even moderately the footprint of the U.S. military in the world or its decades-long posture of endless war.

You are anti-military

I'm against bogging down our military in a indefinite, no win, situation, because our politicians can't agree to pull out.

19 years is long enough. Do you think our people in the military want to spend their entire career deploying there ?

People in the military take orders. What “they” want is irrelevant.

...until senior officers &/or DoD civilian officials leak to the media to influence policy.

[Typical Lax Dad]

'Russia paying a bounty to Afghans for American military deaths' is the hoax we saw coming a billion miles away.

Going to disappoint a few Democrats to hear who you lefties are in bed with promoting it though...

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/hou ... d-germany/

Thanks for posting...a portion:

Good stuff. More from the Glennzilla :
...left-right anti-war coalition is no match for the war machine composed of the establishment wings of both parties and the military and intelligence community that continue to use selective, illegal leaks to sabotage any plans to reduce the U.S. military presence around the world. That the Democrats have spent a full decade desperately recruiting former military and intelligence officials to serve as their Congressional candidates (both Congressman Crow, Liz Cheney’s co-sponsor on the Afghanistan amendment, and the anti-German-troop-withdrawal Congressman Gallego, are both Iraq War veterans) has only made the party even more militaristic.

Combined with the fact that Democrats are increasingly merging with and being led by the Bush-era neocons and other Bush/Cheney operatives in creating such jingoistic and militaristic messaging campaigns as the beloved-by-liberals Lincoln Project, and that Biden is clearly trying to run to Trump’s right on foreign policy with ads accusing him of being too soft on China and linking him to Castro and Chavez, the picture is clear. It should come as absolutely no surprise that House Democrats are finding common cause with Liz Cheney and other GOP warmongers to block any efforts to reduce even moderately the footprint of the U.S. military in the world or its decades-long posture of endless war.

You are anti-military

I'm against bogging down our military in a indefinite, no win, situation, because our politicians can't agree to pull out.

19 years is long enough. Do you think our people in the military want to spend their entire career deploying there ?

People in the military take orders. What “they” want is irrelevant.

...until senior officers &/or DoD civilian officials leak to the media to influence policy.

[jhu72]

More Trumpnista stupidity. At least a few republicans seem to get it even if they will fold like cheap card tables. Would not be surprised if this is another one of Kushner's corrupt deals.

[CU88]

The timing of the SOCM product — apparently tasked only after the story first broke publicly and then produced within a matter of days — also calls into question the motivations of DNI Ratcliffe. If there was a real hunger among policymakers at the White House to understand better the underlying intelligence and the nuanced (and possibly competing) views of analysts across the Intelligence Community, we suspect that tasking would have been issued months ago—when the intelligence on life-or-death threats to U.S. service members first surfaced. On the other hand, if the SOCM was tasked only lately as the Times reporting suggests, one can’t help but wonder if the underlying purpose was to give the administration ammunition to cast doubt on the intelligence community’s bottom-line conclusion. All told, the recent timing of the memo’s tasking and rush to complete it suggests it was intended not to inform policy discussions on how to protect American troops but to inform political efforts to rebut the media reports and bipartisan concerns on the Hill.


https://www.justsecurity.org/71220/unpa ... operation/


For all of the complexity of the intelligence process discussed above, the basic facts are clear: Our intelligence community has assessed that Russia is acting in a way that threatens American lives in Afghanistan. Yes, there are nuances and varying degrees of confidence in that conclusion. That’s normal. But there should not be any kind of debate about whether this conclusion should have been presented to senior policymakers and the President for their review and action—nor any doubt that they should have responded, urgently. In any other time, that would be a given. There might be a policy conversation to be had about what exactly to do in response, but no reasonable conversation can be had about whether to put this conclusion on the table at the level of the President and his National Security Council for discussion about what actions to take.

[old salt]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN2470UT

Two U.S. Navy aircraft carriers are conducting exercises in the contested South China Sea within sight of Chinese naval vessels spotted near the flotilla, the commander of one of the carriers, the USS Nimitz, told Reuters on Monday.

The U.S. Navy has brought carriers together for such shows of force in the region in the past, but this year’s drill comes amid heightened tension as the United States criticizes China over its novel coronavirus response and accuses it of taking advantage of the pandemic to push territorial claims in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

China’s foreign ministry said the United States had deliberately sent its ships to the South China Sea to flex its muscles and accused it of trying to drive a wedge between countries in the region.

The Pentagon, when it announced the dual carrier exercise, said it wanted to “stand up for the right of all nations to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows”, describing its 100,000-ton ships and the 90 or so aircraft they each carry as a “symbol of resolve”.

About 12,000 sailors are on ships in the combined carrier strike groups.

China’s claims nine tenths of in the resource-rich South China Sea, through which some $3 trillion of trade passes a year. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam have competing claims.

China has built island bases atop atolls in the region but says its intentions are peaceful.

[old salt]

The timing of the SOCM product — apparently tasked only after the story first broke publicly and then produced within a matter of days — also calls into question the motivations of DNI Ratcliffe. If there was a real hunger among policymakers at the White House to understand better the underlying intelligence and the nuanced (and possibly competing) views of analysts across the Intelligence Community, we suspect that tasking would have been issued months ago—when the intelligence on life-or-death threats to U.S. service members first surfaced. On the other hand, if the SOCM was tasked only lately as the Times reporting suggests, one can’t help but wonder if the underlying purpose was to give the administration ammunition to cast doubt on the intelligence community’s bottom-line conclusion. All told, the recent timing of the memo’s tasking and rush to complete it suggests it was intended not to inform policy discussions on how to protect American troops but to inform political efforts to rebut the media reports and bipartisan concerns on the Hill.


https://www.justsecurity.org/71220/unpa ... operation/


For all of the complexity of the intelligence process discussed above, the basic facts are clear: Our intelligence community has assessed that Russia is acting in a way that threatens American lives in Afghanistan. Yes, there are nuances and varying degrees of confidence in that conclusion. That’s normal. But there should not be any kind of debate about whether this conclusion should have been presented to senior policymakers and the President for their review and action—nor any doubt that they should have responded, urgently. In any other time, that would be a given. There might be a policy conversation to be had about what exactly to do in response, but no reasonable conversation can be had about whether to put this conclusion on the table at the level of the President and his National Security Council for discussion about what actions to take.

.. ...incomprehensible double-speak jibberish, which demonstrates why IC leakers are not taken seriously when they misuse their access for partisan political objectives.

obtw -- The Ukrainian army has taken their US provided Javelins out of their weapons storage magazines & are deploying them in their front line units in the Donbass.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... lling.html

How could the UN possibly know what intelligence our people had? There could not be a more inept and useless organization than the UN.

[dislaxxic]

IN BURIED REPORT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ADMITS MAJOR FAILURES IN CONFRONTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM

FOR WEEKS, President Donald Trump and top advisers like Attorney General William Barr have sought to blame antifa for sporadic violence and rioting during the ongoing Black Lives Matters protests. With little evidence, Trump even threatened to label antifa, an amorphous left-wing movement opposed to fascism, as a domestic terrorist organization.

But the president’s strategy of pinning blame on antifa in quick, broad brushstrokes is undercut not only by constitutional hurdles and conflicting evidence on the ground, but also by a sobering report from his own intelligence officials that calls for an entirely revamped approach to domestic extremism. The analysis from the National Counterterrorism Center, which has not been previously reported, offers an unusually self-critical view of the gaps and weaknesses in combating homegrown terror threats, and it suggests that the focus needs to be on individual actors who break the law, rather than groups.

The report raises troubling questions about the government’s ability to head off a major attack from extremists at home. In stark terms, it depicts a system ill-equipped to deal with the rising threat of domestic extremists because of splintered approaches by different agencies.

Only HE can prevent forest fi...err...cure all the ills of US society...

Our Very Serious Genius

..

[cradleandshoot]

IN BURIED REPORT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ADMITS MAJOR FAILURES IN CONFRONTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM

FOR WEEKS, President Donald Trump and top advisers like Attorney General William Barr have sought to blame antifa for sporadic violence and rioting during the ongoing Black Lives Matters protests. With little evidence, Trump even threatened to label antifa, an amorphous left-wing movement opposed to fascism, as a domestic terrorist organization.

But the president’s strategy of pinning blame on antifa in quick, broad brushstrokes is undercut not only by constitutional hurdles and conflicting evidence on the ground, but also by a sobering report from his own intelligence officials that calls for an entirely revamped approach to domestic extremism. The analysis from the National Counterterrorism Center, which has not been previously reported, offers an unusually self-critical view of the gaps and weaknesses in combating homegrown terror threats, and it suggests that the focus needs to be on individual actors who break the law, rather than groups.

The report raises troubling questions about the government’s ability to head off a major attack from extremists at home. In stark terms, it depicts a system ill-equipped to deal with the rising threat of domestic extremists because of splintered approaches by different agencies.

Only HE can prevent forest fi...err...cure all the ills of US society...

Our Very Serious Genius

..

So which home grown extremist groups do we have to defend against? How do you defend against them? The problem is Antifa whack jobs and redneck redman chewing hillbillies are free to say anything they want. If the feds can prove they are conspiring to do something then they can arrest them. Unless you are suggesting the USA create a thought police it ain't easy to stop any of these people. I don't think the gubmint folks can prevent a major attack if some group puts their mind to it. The gubmint law enforcement agencies have to be 100% right every day. The bad guys just need to get lucky on any given day. With all the dry weather lately how hard would it be for a couple of jack wagons driving from place to place with a zippo to burn down half of a state? There is no limit to the threats. They come in all shapes and sizes. This is the sick new world we live in.

[old salt]

IN BURIED REPORT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ADMITS MAJOR FAILURES IN CONFRONTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM

FOR WEEKS, President Donald Trump and top advisers like Attorney General William Barr have sought to blame antifa for sporadic violence and rioting during the ongoing Black Lives Matters protests. With little evidence, Trump even threatened to label antifa, an amorphous left-wing movement opposed to fascism, as a domestic terrorist organization.

But the president’s strategy of pinning blame on antifa in quick, broad brushstrokes is undercut not only by constitutional hurdles and conflicting evidence on the ground, but also by a sobering report from his own intelligence officials that calls for an entirely revamped approach to domestic extremism. The analysis from the National Counterterrorism Center, which has not been previously reported, offers an unusually self-critical view of the gaps and weaknesses in combating homegrown terror threats, and it suggests that the focus needs to be on individual actors who break the law, rather than groups.

The report raises troubling questions about the government’s ability to head off a major attack from extremists at home. In stark terms, it depicts a system ill-equipped to deal with the rising threat of domestic extremists because of splintered approaches by different agencies.

So which home grown extremist groups do we have to defend against? How do you defend against them? The problem is Antifa whack jobs and redneck redman chewing hillbillies are free to say anything they want. If the feds can prove they are conspiring to do something then they can arrest them. Unless you are suggesting the USA create a thought police it ain't easy to stop any of these people. I don't think the gubmint folks can prevent a major attack if some group puts their mind to it. The gubmint law enforcement agencies have to be 100% right every day. The bad guys just need to get lucky on any given day. With all the dry weather lately how hard would it be for a couple of jack wagons driving from place to place with a zippo to burn down half of a state? There is no limit to the threats. They come in all shapes and sizes. This is the sick new world we live in.

RICO
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-just ... ized-crime

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://apple.news/AeBKbnTw2TieJVS2XyyiA3g

[CU88]

BREAKING: Judge Sullivan is seeking en banc review of the terrible DC Cir. decision that he can’t look into the bogus DOJ dismissal of the Flynn case.

Of course he can. I predict he will get en banc review & they will reverse.

As they should.

PS Big rule of law day today!



https://twitter.com/NormEisen/status/12 ... 79/photo/1

[youthathletics]

Making a mockery of court system now, proving how effed the average joe is.

[a fan]

Making a mockery of court system now, proving how effed the average joe is.

Nonsense.

Let'e say Joe Biden wins. You'd be ok if Biden appoints a new AG, and the new AG stepped in and shut down and/or reversed prosecutions of Biden's friends? Or Democrats in general? No. You wouldn't. You'd lose your *hit.

What Barr did was wrong.


Know what would convince me as an American of all the Deep State tinfoil hat nonsense? If Flynn waived his attorney client privilege, and let his old lawyers talk....

...because 100 steak dinners says that Flynn copped to lying to the FBI to his own lawyers. Isn't it obvious that that's what happened here? It explains everything that followed.