ChunkMcHorkle

It’s a review of one author’s theory, but of definite interest to the current administration. The OPR has not ruled out a full investigation; rather, this event is a preliminary review toward one. The above article is a rehash of a Wall Street Journal article that goes into it further:

For nearly two years, the Justice Department has made it a priority to investigate people who previously investigated President Trump. Now it is reaching back in history to consider whether prosecutors mistreated an earlier Republican president: Richard Nixon.

The department is reviewing whether the special prosecutor’s office that investigated the famed Watergate break-in committed misconduct, according to people familiar with the matter, more than half a century after that scandal led to Nixon’s resignation.

Nixon’s tenure has been of growing interest to Trump, Vance and the larger conservative movement. Trump has asked former Nixon aides on several occasions why Nixon resigned rather than fight it out.

The basis of the whole thing is that an author is convinced that in 1972 the DoJ failed in its due process obligations to the Watergate defendants, has written several books that are appealing to the Trump administration, and has now been specifically invited by the DoJ to informally present his case again (emphasis mine):

In 2022, the Justice Department under the Biden administration rebuffed Shepard’s request for an investigation, citing the many years that have passed since the events in question. Current officials wanted to hear him out, the people familiar with the matter said. The review is preliminary, and it isn’t clear whether it will lead to a full-fledged probe, the people said.

Note: The WSJ article is brief and well worth reading, but it is behind a hard paywall. I found an archive link but there are known problems with the site. It has the content; use at your own discretion:

Archive link: https://archive.ph/asff3

Well said. I could not agree more. And very few of these random “purity tests” – where the liberal candidate is horrible, evil, gonna burn down the world because they do not have the right stance on [pick an issue] – in online conversation ever come across as authentic or genuine to me; rather, they seem to all be using the same playbook and advancing the same talking points, same as it ever was.

For example, I have NEVER, not once, met a fellow American in real life who did not know exactly where they already stood on Trump or Biden by the time the 2024 elections rolled around. Maybe that’s because I’m old, but we’ve all been firehosed with propaganda day in and day out since 2015, and any middle ground had already long disappeared. Maybe such individuals exist, but for me it would be a wild unicorn sighting.

Yet I’m also supposed to believe that people already opposed to Trump would turn on a dime, hold their noses, and vote for him because Kamala = genocide? Hardly. If you genuinely care about genocide you care about people, and in a country where entitled righties were screaming FUCK YOUR FEELINGS at me that was the magical enticement for me or someone like me to stop caring about real people and vote for the one man who very clearly cares about no one but himself at all? Lol, no. I never believed that and I do not now, and anyone who lives here knows why just from their own lived experience.

These new purity tests are just more of the same, and as we get closer to the midterms I am spending less and less time online overall: if we don’t see it, it’s useless to them, oligarch cash wasted, and that just makes my heart glad.

If votes didn’t matter, the oligarchs would not be spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to change and/or eliminate them.

Getting downvoted for saying you’re GOING TO VOTE calls this online tactic out for exactly what it is, lol.

I’ll be right there at the polls with you. This just makes me want to vote even more than I already do, which is not something I believed actually possible.

Thank you, exactly. Yelling at Lemmy libs who are altogether more likely to vote against the current administration than any other group I can personally name is a complete own goal, unless they’re actively trying to get genuinely horrified Americans to get discouraged and not vote at all, which is another tactic I’ve seen here and personally called out I can’t even count how many times.

Doesn’t matter. I’m voting anyway, and spending less time where I can see that shit to begin with.

And for anyone who can look at their own country and see a diverse set of individuals, but has no problem with looking at another country and seeing only one great homogeneous caricature – that they then screech at personally because yeah, that’s gonna help so much – I got a bag of dicks they can eat.

. . . while I go vote anything but R, and bring my neighbors too, lol.

And an emotional support canned ham, you discriminatory fuck. How very dare you.

/s, just in case anyone needs it – for support

WTF, OP? I had to find an archive to get the rest of the text, and there was a lot more to the story. As usual, United has fully lived down to its abysmally low standards.

For anyone else who has zero intentions of paying for a NBC subscription for one article, here’s an archive link. There are known problems with the site, but I could not find another archive that had the content. Use at your own discretion:

https://archive.ph/xUswb

The networks playing Swan Lake would be fitting in oh so many ways. Especially for CBS.

I have an old 2012 Nook that has literally never been connected to a network: I bought it to sideload epubs and pdfs onto, and that’s all I ever did with it. I never got a Kindle because you can’t sideload pdfs (or couldn’t at the time) and I didn’t like that Amazon was already sneakily retracting/editing purchased digital content.

It could use a new battery but it still works fine, and I bet these Kindles will too as I recall seeing guides out there about how to jailbreak/root them. If you can disconnect your Kindle from all network access and make it sideload (or non-Amazon-connected load) only, you’ll still have a usable device, as well as all your local content. Fuck Amazon.

Four Boxes of Liberty.

I love me some liberty boxes, and I genuinely always enjoy reading a reminder of them. This was well taken, especially the last line. Thank you.

Yup. We used to have a fridge built in the early 80s (possibly late 70s) that lasted until 2015. Ugly ass harvest gold color and everything. Ran it continuously. Had to have it repaired maybe twice in all that time. We moved out and left it behind; for all I know it’s still going (though probably not because it was truly an eyesore).

The point is that a well built refrigerator can last decades, same as other major appliances like washing machines and dryers. No computerization necessary at all. Our fridge was not the most energy efficient by the end, obviously, but apart from that . . . why not build them to last?

Greed. Just overwhelming, all-consuming corporate greed.

Oh wait, going by your profile you’re magically Canadian too, posting in the middle of the US night. There is NO “us.” There is NO “we.” You’re just another fraud jumping into the fray before the US midterms. Thought as much.

When I go vote, I’m going to laugh at all the trolls who tried this shit on me, lol.

Mind your own country, wherever it is. I don’t give a shit what you have to say or what you think: this is not your country, these are not your elections, and you don’t find corruption because you can’t be bothered to look.

If you’re over twelve years old you know that corruption does not exist in a vacuum, and that someone never just stops at corruption: there are always other problems.

I don’t have to find corruption, specifically, to know whether there are character problems with party, history, personal life, or all of the above.

Just like I already know these are just excuses on your part. You don’t even look. You insist it’s too hard.

For whatever reason, you want other people to check out of voting, or doing even the first tiny bit of due diligence, and it’s not working on me.

How is it you live in the US, you’re posting in a US politics community, but you have zero idea how few reps you actually have at the federal level? Your facade is slipping.

Lol, no. You make me want to vote even more than I already want to vote, and that’s a high bar.

Also, I make it a point to know my reps: on the federal level I have two state senators and one congressperson. Doing a superficial look into the history of three individuals is NOT a high bar. Wikipedia’s a one stop shop for the time limited: go to the section labeled “controversy” if there is one, and you’re done.

Just so we’re clear. It looks like you really just don’t want anything to change.

The difference is far less than you make it out to be.

Did you . . . did you really just tell a trans person with lived experience that they don’t know the political landscape they are physically having to move to escape? Someone paraquat your weed?

This is the epitome of bad faith argument. Blocked.

I’m not the one you were responding to but I honestly did not know this, and I feel like I should have.

TIL, thank you. I will absolutely keep this in mind going forward.

I think she has a very rocky road ahead. She was already getting side-eyed for Kavanaugh, then Platner and then Jackson took a spotlight to her many faults, then there was the ICE thing at her office in Biddeford, and now this. And those are just off the top of my head.

I absolutely love this for her. The next month and a half of her life is going to SUCK, and those pearls aren’t going to clutch themselves.

No, they really are NOT all corrupt. Take, for example, Elizabeth Warren, the founder of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; or Ron Wyden, who has spent months chasing down Epstein’s money trail; or Sheldon Whitehouse, who has also worked hard on Epstein-related corruption; or Bernie Sanders who, if memory serves, doesn’t even take corporate cash at all. The list of good to great ones is actually pretty long; those are just off the top of my head.

Some of these folks are literal heroes, and really are doing all they can for their constituents and country.

But the ones that are corrupt now outnumber the ones that are not, and it’s up to us as citizens to clean it up somehow: Washington can no longer clean itself.

If you let yourself get cynical and call them all corrupt, it’s just a dishonest way of exempting yourself from the fight, calling it all hopeless so you can walk away. Don’t.

The fund is very pointedly not not dead as Blanche could not be brought to say so in writing at the time of his confirmation, but I guarantee you that no matter what happens, no one outside the Trump org is ever going to see a penny of that.

If he’d actually given a shit about the J6 rubes he’d have already helped them in other ways, like funding their legal defenses privately immediately afterward. He has money and there’s no law against a private citizen helping pay someone else’s legal bills, but as far as I know he’s never thrown so much as a nickel in a jar for them or anyone else.

That fund is just another way to extract cash from the country. For himself. While getting the rubes to support it because they think there’s actually something it it for them, finally. “Fell For It Again Award” material, basically.

https://youtu.be/vcID0OafOts

I cannot express in words my extreme dismay that the comments are turned off. That shit would absolutely be a comedy gold dumpster fire, but no joy.

So I did the next best thing and went to the middle of the video via scrollbar and then closed it outright just to fuck with the algorithm. It is my understanding that this is the worst thing you can do to a content creator, quit a video in the middle.

Happy to help.

Demands two-month-old account ad hominem ragebaiting, lol.

Can’t believe I haven’t blocked you already, but I have since corrected that oversight.