Mark Knight

Since he realizes the inevitability of his arrest and indictment. perhaps he's simply laying the groundwork for an insanity defense.

Last night, Trump indicated to Sean Hannity that as President, he could declassify documents by merely thinking about it. According to federal law, while a president CAN take measures to declassify documents, there are certain procedures which must be followed, especially for matters dealing with national security. ESPECIALLY in cases in which declassification might reveal intelligence sources and/or methods. In the case of the 100 or so docs the FBI collected on August 8 at Mar-a-Lago, there is NO EVIDENCE that Trump followed ANY of the procedures specified by federal law. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals [two of the three judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals were appointed by Trump] ruled last night that there is no evidence that Trump followed federal law regarding declassification of ANY of the suspect documents. Explain to me, Ben, how this is the "Deep State" attacking Trump...rather than prima facie evidence that Trump failed to follow the law regarding declassification of federal documents. Explain to me WHY the federal law which has applied to EVERY PRESIDENT since the law was written is suddenly null and void regarding Trump. You can explain it to me as if you were explaining it to a jury, or you can explain it to me like you would to a five-year-old child. But PLEASE explain how requiring a President to follow the law is expected of EVERY OTHER President but is suddenly "Deep-State" harassment and persecution when it comes to Donald J. Trump. I'm expecting this to be a very interesting explanation. [I'm making popcorn.]

Yes, Trump said "...when you're President..." Which he hasn't been since noon on January 20th, 2021. Of course, if he contends that he's STILL President, then the Constitution prohibits him from running again in 2024. If the law was actually something he obeyed.

Just so Ben doesn't accuse me of taking the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision "out of context," here's a link to the entire 29-page decision: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183-625b-da48-a3e3-e2ff83050000 Check it out; it's a really good read. By a couple of TRUMP-APPOINTED JUDGES, by the way. Yes, i read the entire 29 pages.

Part of the 11th Circuit's ruling regarding the government documents:

Appeals court gives DOJ access to classified documents from Mar-a-Lago (usatoday.com)

Last week the manager at my local Senior Citizens Center went on a couple of tirades. On Tuesday, talking about VP Kamala Harris, he stated, "She needs to be shot right between the eyes." He became agitated just by being shown her photo. The following day, speaking of President Biden, he said, " He needs to be shot." Then he added, "I could take him out at 1.000 yards, and he'd never see it coming." Then he got agitated because the local Democratic Party had set up their headquarters in a building directly across the park from the Senior Center. "Every damn one of 'em in that place should be shot!" he said. Since he's bragged about owning military-style weapons, and he's an ex-Marine, I hope he never snaps. But just in case, I made a report on the FBI online tip line today. Yes, he's super-MAGA. I just hope he doesn't turn vigilante should Trump be arrested. I asked the FBI to leave my name out of any conversations they have with him. And Ben, I don't hear ANY "Donks," as you call them, threatening bodily harm to Trump or to Republicans. Not UNLESS the MAGA crowd decides to attack them.

Ben, your last sentence is one point upon which you and I might find agreement.

I will certainly be in that line.

Ben, I think you're forgetting that it was the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION who made the agreement to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. In fact, Biden left American troops in Afghanistan a month and a half longer than the exit date that Trump had negotiated. Do some research, and then tell me whether I speak the truth or not. I'll wait.

As far as Wes Frazier goes, we have to recognize a couple of facts. His story has been consistent all along, and I trust that he's telling the truth about not CONSCIOUSLY seeing Oswald on the TSBD steps. The possibility exists that when Frazier was on the steps, he was more conscious of the people standing in front of him than the people standing to the side of him. Frazier doesn't say that Oswald was never on the steps. He states the truth, that he doesn't remember seeing Oswald there. Think back to any situation when you were in a group of people viewing a major event. Since the event itself occupies the major portion of your memory, can you recall EVERY person standing near you? Are you SURE? I've witnessed incidents myself in which, when I start to name the people standing near me whom I knew, I leave someone out. WHY? Because I simply can't remember seeing them there. And I think this is what Frazier is saying, simply that he doesn't remember seeing Oswald there. So Frazier is simply being honest when he says he didn't see Oswald on the steps. IF -- big if -- Prayer Person/Prayer Man IS eventually confirmed to have been Oswald, Frazier's words are still true: he didn't [CONSCIOUSLY] see Oswald there on the steps. And if PM is NOT Oswald, Frazier still has told the truth.

Ron, this is a chess move. If Trump lies and certifies that he HAS surrendered all documents, he can be tried for perjury. If he tells the truth and says he has NOT returned all the documents, then he is admitting he is guilty of violating the Espionage Act. If he pleads the Fifth Amendment, it looks the same as an admission of guilt, because he would be saying that telling the truth would incriminate him. Checkmate.

Ben, re-read the beginning of the thread. It explains the "janitor" reference. Of course, Oswald wasn't the janitor. Everyone knows that...NOW. Re-read the beginning of the thread to understand what the "janitor" reference was about. And of course, the failure to search for the Nov. 20 records is suspicious. On that part, you have a gift at explaining the obvious.

What, exactly, is "witness tampering" supposed to look like?

When Marina came to the US with Lee Oswald in 1962, she was not a US citizen. As I understand the citizenship procedure, she would have been issued a "green card" [or similar document] and could ONLY apply for citizenship after 3 years' residence in the US. A couple of questions come to mind here. 1.) As a noncitizen, wouldn't she have been required to report EVERY address change to the Immigration Service? 2.) Once Lee Oswald was dead, she was simply a Soviet citizen in the US, and no longer the wife of an American citizen. Would that have affected her residency status with the Immigration Service? Would that have led to SS, FBI, and DPD investigators to "suggest" [threaten] that deportation was an option if Marina failed to cooperate, i.e., tell them what they wanted to hear? In 1963, Miranda rights were 3 years away. And old "cop shows" illustrate how cops would bend the rules to pressure potential witnesses/defendants to tell them what they wanted to hear [witness the "confession" that the DPD tried to force on Wes Frazier]. So if Marina had NOT informed Immigration about changes of address, that might have provided cops with leverage, real or imagined, to have her tell them the story they wanted to hear. Anyone have any information regarding Marina and the Immigration officials? I don't recall previously seeing any investigation into this area.

When they tell you who they are... believe them.

The agenda from the right starts with vouchers, to siphon students and money from public schools to private schools. Once their goal is met and public schools are closed, then the states "turn off the tap" for vouchers... likely citing a state "fiscal crisis." THEN who goes to school and who doesn't? Rich kids go to school. Poor children are left without education. You say TODAY'S educational system is "classist?" Just wait until we revert to a new feudal system. And oligarchs will have won, at least until the next uprising with torches and pitchforks.

Amen. The FBI and the CIA in the '60s... if you lived through that era, you knew not to trust anything they said. If you were a male with long hair and a beard, you were a target no matter what your politics. I had long hair and a beard in the '60s and '70s. Still have the beard to this day. But the turn toward fascism under Nixon was NOTHING in comparison to the Trump-led cultists. The oligarchy will financially support them because keeping the people divided sells merch. Of course, selling nuclear secrets is a different matter...but oligarchs also finance wars, so they get paid if it all turns violent.

I got the chance in the Indiana Primary election. In case you've forgotten, Bernie WON the Indiana Primary in 2016.

I'm sorry to hear this. As a former member of the John Birch Society, he gave a unique perspective on Guy Gabaldon and others with whom he was in close contact back in the day.

Sen. Graham says if Trump is indicted, there will be 'riots in the street' | Fox News Again, it's NOT the left that is threatening violence...contrary to what Ben has claimed. The left has merely acknowledged that the right is threatening violence, should Trump get indicted. That's a HUGE difference. If you say you're going to punch me in the nose if something occurs, and then I tell someone about your threat, how do I become the one advocating violence? I don't. The left is merely talking about the violence that the MAGA supporters are threatening. That does NOT equate to the left advocating violence...unless you're quite twisted.

Ben apparently doesn't.

I have no theory on how the revolver in the sack got to the curb. I just find its presence there illogical. It may have been discarded by Crafard and/or Ruby. It may have been left there by someone else. There is no way to determine, short of eyewitness testimony. Which doesn't exist. For all we know, the revolver in the sack may have been connected to a different crime. Perhaps an armed robbery. But its disappearance once in DPD custody is as mysterious as its appearance on the day after Tippit's murder [which may have been coincidental].

You're putting words in my mouth. STOP IT. I did NOT say that this missing revolver was used in a murder. I simply said it was illogical for it to be discarded in a bag on a curb because in 1963 it was easy to sell or pawn a handgun for cash. I made NO mention of it being used in a murder. Just because someone points out that it is illogical to throw away an item with obvious cash value, that does NOT indicate that I subscribe 100% to anyone's theory as to WHY it was disposed of in this illogical way. It's also illogical that such a weapon, once in police custody, would disappear without some sort of paper trail. But it did, and one must start asking why.

“People should just, just be ready to get out on the streets with pitchforks and torches with how low the liberal media has become.” —Tim Michels, GOP candidate for WI governor. That doesn't sound to me like it's the LEFT that is threatening violence.