Mach
Member

The president can declassify any document they desire by mere thought alone, sure there is a process to officially record their decision, but that is merely procedural and discretionary, it's not a criminal matter. The precedent was established by Bill Clinton who was found to have hidden classified documents in his sock drawer after he was succeeded by the next dimwitted President "W." Meanwhile, the real concern on classified document abuses pertains to sleepy Joe's possession of hundreds of classified documents (from his time as VP) having been discovered in unsecured areas about multiple states along with him and his families links to China and Ukraine and all the funneling of massive sums of money and Hunter's laptop from hell, kiddie porn, illegal weapons possession, and serious drug abuses. As well all of Hiltardery Clinton's multitude of blatant criminal violations. You really should stop swallowing the BS that the cable news shows shovels at you. (It only makes you look foolish, and believe me you most certainly don't need anymore help in that arena!) There was nobody in the Trump administration calling for any such thing to occur. Trump was calling only for Pence (and the House) to postpone the certification process for about a month while they initiate the process to begin an investigation into flagrant and obvious election fraud.

Trump was president when he obtained the classified documents, thereby he was entitled access to those documents to the highest levels, so this is a non criminal matter; and to reference Bill Clinton had also maintained personal possession of classified documents after his presidency had ended and he was cleared of any and all wrong doing, so regardless if he procedurally declassified them or not is not a legal matter, notwithstanding any procedural discrepancies. However, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence, none of who (prior to) served as a U.S. President, have all been in possession of classified documents and no investigations into them has been made public to date. What is Trump supposed to be guilty of concerning January 6th? Inciting an organized peaceful rally to publicly seek a redress of grievances for what was a clearly and obvious stolen election (by calling upon the (traitorous) VP to initiate an established procedure of contesting the election results) that ended up being hijacked by federal provocateurs and corrupted D.C. police officers, in concert with Nancy Pelosi and others, who namely themselves orchestrated a preplanned and yet failed plan to incite a riot to blame on Trump, but that really only caused minor damage to property, the murder of several unarmed protestors, causing injuries to many more, and ultimately destroying the lives of thousands. ...Ever heard of the Compromise of 1877 (and how the Democrats fought tooth and nail to maintain control of slavery while Replicans fought to put an end to it)? January 6th has nothing on it in comparison! This indictment makes the DNC appear weak and desperate, really pathetic. As this nonsense unfolds (and the allegations shreds into pieces) it will only further boost Trump's popularity...in the end though it will not really matter cause the DNC controls the vote counts and now they know without doubt that they can get away with anything criminal at this point, so they will skew the votes to favor their selected candidate for the win in 2024. Issues in Trump's favor to further consider: selective prosecution, prosecutorial misconduct, grand jury misconduct, affirmative defense--statute of limitation exceeded, procedural notice due process violations, affirmative defense--paying hush money is not criminal (and it will be virtually impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged payment pertained to manipulating an election), the key witness is a convicted felon and habitual liar.

...And FTX, and SVB, and...well you get the point.

True to a point, but that is certainly not the case here. And the courts don't have to waste their time (they get paid either way) hearing such (frivolous) arguments, because they are summarily dismissed. We’re back to Springer again, seriously? Again, Springer was subsequently narrowed by Pollock. Mr. Springer, a very wealthy attorney, was in Congress during that period. He was justifiably taxable under federal income taxation. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKendree_Springer Besides being very limited in its scope of subject-matter, Springer was a poorly prepared, poorly argued income tax case that preceded the 16th Amend. Little debate on the matter is provided within this case as it would pertain to indirectly taxing the remuneration or pay of laborers, unlike in Pollock.

I consider him an online friend I've known for about 15 years, RIP.

Reference:

lolz, even when I was in elementary school I didn't believe the notion of fossil fuels that was taught to us, it just sounded so f-ing dumb, just the entire notion was stupid. Like what? When dinosaurs die they go to do it in some nearby mass dinosaur graveyard and then over the passing of time their carcass gets pulled down hundreds to thousands of feet under the ground (and even in the ocean) and then somehow their remains turns into an explosive chemical when refined? ...Then later on in life I came to the realization I was really, really smart for not falling for such crap. haha! Also, I believe there is a lot of fraud and misconceptions involved in our accepted history of dinosaurs. Also, it has now been shown the "dried up" oil wells in places like Texas are again pumping crude oil. It is more actually that crude oil is a byproduct of specific reactions taking place internally, similar to lava flows, earthquakes, eruptions, natural hot springs (which may release hydrogen sulfide a flammable gas), and the like.

I will defer to the CRS' determination on the matter over yours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States#cite_note-7 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf

The definitions of early legal dictionaries, scholarly economists, and jurists, see: 'capitation' and 'personalty' taxes. False ideologies, like yours, are why such matters were debated so vigorously throughout the Federalist debates, being seriously concerning to the unsettled masses. For example, just because some dickheaded, cocksucking, asshole, motherfucker name Anthony Stephen Fauci (who neither is nor possesses the certifications of a scientist, microbiologist, chemist, virologist, infectiologist, epidemiologist, or immunologist, but who is only a general MD practitioner that has never actually practiced on his own patients, despite all of his crazy and medically baseless experimenting he's authorized or performed on his unwitting victims) and William Henry Gates III (a college dropout, who is a seriously misguided technocratic eugenicist, a lying, punk-ass, dweeb that defrauded and stole the achievements of others in order to peddle his shitty Windows software, mostly on the backs of hardworking taxpayers through government contracted purchases) conspired one day to conveniently redefine was a medical vaccination is, does not factually alter the empirical definition of what is a vaccine. No, people can protest taxes for many, many reasons, in-fact for as many reasons as there are classes and types of taxes; in doing so does not establish them as being a "crackpot." The Legislature has even recognized this, for example, in their ratification of the RFRA, i.e., 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–3. The matter of taxing individual pay has remained one of the most contentious issues throughout the last century, so much so that the IRS constantly either demands or begs of Congress to amend or implement new statutes to deter, to instill fear upon, the mass of taxpayers to overwhelm them from so much as doubting anything outside of what the IRS preaches to them upon each passing tax season. ...And yet SCOTUS to date, has steadfastly avoided granting certiorari to all such tax cases even though such cases meet the necessary requisites for their review and of which have numbered in scores upon scores of over the decades...which is especially worrisome being that the reality is that SCOTUS has heard and reheard other tax matters over and over and over throughout the centuries, and many of those cases subject-matter that the the Court had agreed to review were plain ludicrous, obviously misguided, or otherwise flagrant or illogical in premise, e.g., federal judge salaries' were wholly exempt from income taxation until 1939 (O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939); or even the findings in Pollock, i.e., that because the source of the tax was constitutionally exempted from direct taxation so also was the gains and profits realized from those sources.) (Honestly, I am of the belief that SCOTUS dares not touch the taxing of wages issue for they know that they will be massively buried by nation wide amicus curiaes from every side of the debate, so much so that it will take their staff years and years to summarize them all--that is aside from the fact that they are likely very aware of the truth about income taxes laws being grossly misapplied, along with the incessant abuses being committed by the IRS and state taxing boards, and that the current taxing system is necessary to the continued financial interests of the Federal Reserve ponzi-scheme.)

Pollock. So says the pot to the kettle. Ohhh, yea, that case wherein "the income of a husband by way of salary and attorney's fees is taxable to him." Sure, sure. Gotcha! The source is not ever taxable, only the gain or profit that becomes severed from it--as constitutional 'income.' It's not the source that is the subject of income taxation.

A tax upon the national workforce is by definition a 'direct tax.'

Off the top: 1. The income tax was imposed on the basis of generating revenue to support war efforts; however, the USA has not declared war since 1942. Moreover, it has gone on to be misappropriated in order to sustain myriads of social justice programs that are entirely outside of the powers of the federal government--amendments to our Constitution are otherwise necessary. 2. Mandatory payroll withholdings violate the 5th Amend., as it's the taking of personal property without just compensation and solely to the benefit of the government--the taxpayer forever looses the ability to collect investment interest on the withheld sums, while the government does and neglects to proffer it as either a tax deduction or refund of any type. 3. State income taxes further subjugate individual rights and constitutional protections as states imposing income taxes do so upon the whole amount due (firstly) to the federal government, yet without any prudent consideration that a portion of that sum was never at any point in time in the possession or control of the taxpayer--state income taxes should only tax the remaining sum that was precedently taken by the federal government. Otherwise, taxpayers are being doubly taxed upon monies that was of no practicable benefit to them other than for the purpose of being taxed to the benefit and advantage of the state and federal governments (i.e., the government is using these withholdings to generate pooled investment interest throughout the year and then at the end of the year collects taxes from these sums from each individual taxpayer.) Bonuses:

OMG, just stop with that old tired nonsense! Springer was an attorney and bondholder who reported $50,798 in income back then. The issue in Springer was again "income, gains, and profits" during the year 1865. $50,798 with factoring in today's inflation is over $1.5 million. Ergo, Springer was not a laborer, craftsman, or farmer, or such anything. Pollock modified the findings of Springer; and the (since overruled) Hilton case was nothing other than a silly ass argument over taxes being levied upon horse buggies without apportionment--it has no bearing in modern society, period. The Revenue Act of 1864 unequivocally stated: "Section 116 of the Act imposed the tax on "the gains, profits, and income of every person residing in the United States, or of any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever" and raised its tax rates from the 1862 Act that started out at 3% over $800 (which is now the equivalent of more than $24,000) to 5% above $600 (which is over $18,000 in today's dollars.) * Notice the similarities between the above and the 16th Amend., i.e., "gains, profits, and income ... derived from any kind" and "from any other source whatever" versus "the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived," hence, properly as an indirect tax it's not being 'directly' imposed upon whatever the source might be, but 'indirectly' upon only the 'gains or profits' as "incomes," being derived from whatever the sources may be. The distinction here is whether or not a positive financial severing had occurred throughout a given tax-year.

Here's that specific piece.. I didn't think it was real at first, I thought it was something from the past.

If you want to conquer wokeness, you will need a popular leftist to be one of your spokesmen.

Haha... that's funny, here is the that Sheriff and some of his deputies now. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/iron-county-sheriff-remains-jailed-as-prosecutor-hints-at-bigger-scandal/article_5c1c1895-d64f-5316-a6a9-5ecf2b460e86.html

He knows he will lose his career if he ever applied that... he believes in climate change, but flies in his own private jet.

White single parent homes has risen for many decades, but the murder rate has not kept up.

Just another day. In linguistics and related fields, pragmatics is the study of how context contributes to meaning. The field of study evaluates how human language is utilized in social interactions, as well as the relationship between the interpreter and the interpreted. In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

The guys that ran it knew it was coming.

Wow... 47:14 JACOBY:Even some of the largest beneficiaries of this trend told me it made them uncomfortable, like legendary investor Jeremy Grantham. Grantham: In my career in America, the percentage of GDP that goes to finance has gone from three-and-a-half to eight-and-a-half. (chuckling): We're, in a way, we're like a giant bloodsucker, and we have more than doubled in size, and sucking more than twice the blood out of

Oh I know, more mainstream and getting to the ears that need to be woke up in the first place, but he will also only be able to dig so far and in certain places, commercials are commercials. === Here is that full podcast.

If he's serious then that means he will eventually go off on his own and dig in, but I wouldn't count on it. Rogan needs to have Tucker on his show, and even let Alex Jones sit in for awhile... 10 million views.