Auburnfan91

In regards to Gaetz, this is another Kavanaugh situation. Allow wild accusations to taint the accused as guilty regardless of there being any credible evidence.

Charges unlikely against Gaetz in federal sex-trafficking probe Federal authorities began investigating the Florida Republican in late 2020. By Josh Gerstein and Matt Dixon 09/23/2022 12:21 PM EDT Updated: 09/23/2022 01:42 PM EDT The federal investigation into Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz’s alleged sexual encounters with teenage girls is winding down and no charges are expected to be filed against the firebrand Republican congressman, a person familiar with the probe said Friday. Federal prosecutors and the FBI began investigating Gaetz in late 2020 during the Trump administration over potential sex trafficking crimes related to allegations he’d paid women for sex and traveled overseas on at least one occasion to parties attended by teenagers who were not yet 18. Gaetz, who denied having sex as an adult with anyone underage, declined to comment on the development. A Justice Department spokesperson also declined to comment. Gaetz is a close and outspoken ally of former President Donald Trump. The Washington Post first reported Friday that career prosecutors have recommended not pursuing charges against Gaetz, in part due to concerns about the credibility of potential witnesses. It would be highly unusual for political appointees at the Justice Department to press forward with a prosecution in the face of opposition from top career officials. Gaetz’s peril in the investigation seemed to intensify last year when a former close friend, former Seminole County, Fla., Tax Collector Joel Greenberg, pleaded guilty to six federal crimes including a sex trafficking charge and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. The probe into Greenberg steered authorities to look into Gaetz and several other men in Florida and led to the prosecution of Joe Ellicott, a collectibles dealer who was named on a federal grand jury subpoena along with Gaetz. However, signs of activity in the probe seemed to slow in recent months even as some predicted action in the case by the end of summer. Earlier this month, when the Justice Department entered into a pre-election quiet period for politically-charged investigations without any charges being brought, the chances of charges against Gaetz appeared to dim. Greenberg’s sentencing has been repeatedly delayed as his cooperation with the feds continued. The precise reasons for the delays were unclear, but defendants aiding the government in an investigation typically want to be able to show the court as much assistance as possible, including grand jury or trial testimony if required. “Mr. Greenberg has been cooperating with federal prosecutors in active investigations currently being conducted by the United States Attorney’s Office in the Middle District of Florida and the Department of Justice in Washington D.C, as well as in other jurisdictions, Greenberg’s defense attorney Fritz Scheller said in a July court filing. The submission, along with other information given to the court under seal, prompted U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Presnell to put Greenberg’s sentencing off until Dec. 1. Besides the alleged sex trafficking offense, federal prosecutors were examining whether Gaetz had obstructed justice stemming from a phone call one witness had with Gaetz and the lawmaker’s girlfriend at the time. Exact details of that phone call are unknown. The New York times also previously reported that Gaetz sought a blanket pardon in the last few weeks of Trump’s presidency, though it’s unclear if the Florida Republican knew he was under investigation when he asked for the pardon. The Washington Post last week also reported that Gaetz sought a pardon specifically over the federal investigation into sex offenses – details that emerged from testimony provided to the House’s select committee probing the Jan. 6 attack at the Capitol. Greenberg, who was once considered Gaetz’s “wingman,” had faced credibility issues in part because of the massive list of charges he initially faced. Greenberg faced multiple indictments and a total of 33 criminal counts against him at one point, though he eventually pleaded guilty to only six counts. Those criminal charges included sex trafficking a minor, stalking and fraud. He’s facing a minimum of 12 years behind bars. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/23/charges-unlikely-against-gaetz-in-federal-sex-trafficking-probe-00058617 Those Justice Department leaks to the media about the investigation in March 2021 really did the trick. Resistance types won't care though. That was the point of leaking it because those types will still believe Gaetz is guilty regardless of the lack of credible evidence/witnesses to bring charges.

Auburn South Carolina LSU Mississippi State Georgia Ole Miss Kentucky Baylor Oregon USC Texas Oklahoma Ohio State Alabama Tennessee Arkansas Clemson 62

Everyone was on board with Harsin’s hiring as Auburn’s 27th head coach in program history. As Auburn President Jay Gogue said, “We aimed high, and we hit high.” But the prior relationship — mostly importantly, that first impressions — between Harsin and Greene that helped Harsin secure an early spot on Auburn’s head coach leaderboard. https://247sports.com/college/auburn/Article/Allen-Greene-Auburn-Bryan-Harsin-new-head-coach-press-conference-full-circle--157880360/ Allen Greene is the one who expressed interest in Harsin and the reason he was even a candidate.

The former AD hired Harsin. If it wasn't for him, Auburn would have never even talked to Harsin, let alone hired him.

Missouri Northern Illinois Mississippi State Florida State Wake Forest Kentucky Alabama Arkansas Florida Tennessee Ole Miss Penn State Georgia Michigan State Texas Tech Oregon Miami 76

Finley didn't have a good game but keep in mind his 2 interceptions were when we had a comfortable lead. Also, the same perspective should be used for Ashford. He looked good when he was put in the game, but he did it while we were up by 20+ points. It's different when it's a tight game and you need to make plays vs getting to play when there's no pressure on you to win the game.

It didn't matter if Nix played lousy and or even decent, Oregon was going to get blown out. UGA didn't punt until the 4th quarter. They scored on their first 7 drives. Oregon's defense couldn't even slow UGA down. It's not like they had many short fields either, 5 of the 7 drives UGA scored were 75+ yards. 1Q UGA 12 plays 85 yards 7-0 2Q UGA 7 plays 92 yards 14-0 2Q UGA 6 plays 56 yards 21-0 2Q UGA 8 plays 75 yards 28-3 3Q UGA 6 plays 64 yards 35-3 3Q UGA 9 plays 75 yards 42-3 4Q UGA 9 plays 89 yards 49-3

lol Excuse me for not revering the integrity of a CIA director and thinking he's part of the problem. Hayden is one of the over 50 former intelligence officials who signed a letter in October 2020 to claim that the Hunter Biden laptop story from the NYPost was likely Russian disinformation.

I'm sure this will help ratchet down the discourse from Republicans that think the federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies are against them. Over 100K likes for that tweet right now. When this type of language is used repeatedly by former government officials, it's to help condition one side to weaponize federal law enforcement agencies against their political opponents and to view them as a threat.

The president’s classification and declassification powers are broad Experts agreed that the president, as commander in chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When people lower in the chain of command handle classification and declassification duties — which is usually how it’s done — it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president. The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan — which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance — addresses this line of authority. "The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant." Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will." In fact, Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said that "if Congress were to enact a statute seeking to limit the president’s authority to classify or declassify national security information, or to prohibit him from sharing certain kinds of information with Russia, it would raise serious separation of powers constitutional issues." The official documents governing classification and declassification stem from executive orders. But even these executive orders aren’t necessarily binding on the president. The president is not "obliged to follow any procedures other than those that he himself has prescribed," Aftergood said. "And he can change those." Indeed, the controlling executive order has been rewritten by multiple presidents. The current version of the order was issued by President Barack Obama in 2009. The national-security experts at the blog Lawfare wrote in the wake of the Post’s revelation that the "infamous comment" by President Richard Nixon — that "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" — "is actually true about some things. Classified information is one of them. The nature of the system is that the president gets to disclose what he wants." Two caveats So Risch’s comment holds water when it comes to the extent of the president’s powers. But some experts said that Risch’s formulation leaves out some notable aspects of the particular case involving Trump. The first caveat: While Trump has the power to declassify information, he doesn’t appear to have done that in this case, at least at the time the story broke. "There’s no question that the president has broad authority to declassify almost anything at any time without any process, but that’s not what happened here," said Stephen I. Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "He did not, in fact, declassify the information he shared with the Russians, which is why The Washington Post did not publish that information." Instead, Vladeck said, Trump "took it upon himself to authorize officials from a foreign government to receive classified national security information that was itself derived from a different foreign government’s intelligence gathering. That’s just not the same thing as what Sen. Risch described, and the law on this topic is far murkier." Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty & National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center, agreed that Risch’s point speaks to general presidential authority but not what happened in this particular case. "Trump surely would not concede that the information in question is now ‘unclassified’ and available to anyone who files a (Freedom of Information Act) request," she said. "The relevant question, therefore, is not whether the president can spontaneously declassify information, but whether the president is permitted to disclose sensitive national security information to anyone he wishes." Turner noted, however, that this isn’t necessarily a big distinction, since the president is ultimately the decider of what is classified and not. If his appointees disagree with his actions, "he can overrule their decisions," Turner said. "Within the Executive Branch the president is the boss." The second caveat: Just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it’s a smart idea. "The important caveat is that ‘legal’ and ‘sensible’ may be different things," said John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org. "It may be legal, but it may fail to avoid the appearance of impropriety." Setting aside ethics, doing what Trump is alleged to have done could have negative practical consequences for the United States. "It could wreck the underlying intelligence-sharing agreement and place the U.S. at a disadvantage," Aftergood said. That said, the line between wise and unwise is a judgment call. On the one hand, Turner agreed that alienating an ally by not following their orders "could have very serious consequences." On the other hand, he said, it’s not outlandish to argue that sharing closely held information with Russia could advance, rather than hurt, national interests. Turner said it may be "in America’s interest to cooperate with Russia in the struggle against ISIS, including sharing intelligence information that may help save Russian lives and seeking information that may save American lives and those of other potential victims of ISIS attacks. Obviously, in the process we will want to safeguard sources and methods that might weaken our ability to keep track of what President Putin is up to--as he is potentially a greater threat to our security than is ISIS. But the struggle against ISIS is an area where the United States and Russia have a shared interest." In a statement to PolitiFact, Risch’s office said that criticism of the wisdom of Trump's action would be a personal opinion, but such sentiments would not speak to "the letter of the law." "Sen. Risch can tell you that all former presidents of the United States spoke regularly with heads of states and discussed classified matter, if they determined it to be in the best interest of the American people," the statement said. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/ Presidents have the authority to declassify anything.

Garland, Wray Must Be Impeached for Unconscionable Trump Raid | Opinion Mike Davis On 8/15/22 at 6:30 AM EDT For over a year, we've heard Democrats wailing about existential threats to "democracy!" Curiously, this has happened while these same Democrats in Congress have worked hand-in-glove with their fellow Democrats in the Justice Department to disregard all norms to hunt down and attempt to destroy President Joe Biden's chief political rival, former President Donald Trump, as well as Trump's top aides and even his political supporters. Last Monday, the Biden Justice Department crossed a red line by ordering an unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful FBI raid of Trump's home and offices in Mar-a-Lago. The purported purpose of the highly controversial home raid with a brigade of 30 FBI agents—a raid Attorney General Merrick Garland admitted he personally ordered after his aides initially denied it—is related to 15 to 25 boxes of presidential records, some of which bureaucrats at the National Archives claim are classified and which Trump took to Mar-a-Lago when he left the White House over 18 months ago. All presidents take mementos and other records when they leave office. They don't pack their own boxes. The National Archives takes the position that almost everything is a "presidential record." And the federal government, in general, over-classifies almost everything. Even if Trump took classified records, that isn't a crime. The president has the inherent constitutional power to declassify any record he wants, in any manner he wants, regardless of any otherwise-pertinent statute or regulation that applies to everyone else. The president does not need to obtain Congress' or a bureaucrat's permission—or jump through their regulatory or statutory hoops—to declassify anything. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in the 1988 case, Department of the Navy v. Egan : "The President, after all, is the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.' U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security...flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant." Thus, if Trump left the White House with classified records, then those records are necessarily declassified by his very actions. He doesn't need to label that decision for, or report that decision to, any bureaucrat who works for him. It is pretextual legal nonsense for the Biden Justice Department to pretend Trump broke any criminal statute. Indeed, it is noteworthy that Attorney General Garland apparently did not seek an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—the de facto general counsel for the executive branch—before ordering this home raid of his boss's chief political enemy. Perhaps Garland knew OLC wouldn't give him the answer he wanted. In 2012, former President Barack Obama secretly told the Russian president he'd have "more flexibility" to negotiate with Russia after the 2012 presidential election. To convey that message is to clearly transmit highly classified information. So why not an Espionage Act violation? Well, because Obama was the president—period. All former presidents also get a federally funded office, called the Office of the Former President. They get lawyers and other staff, security clearances, Secret Service protection, and secure facilities (SCIFs) for the maintenance of classified records. Even if Trump had classified records, then, they were protected and secure. At best, then, this amounts to a dispute over the Presidential Records Act. If the boxes sought by DOJ contain presidential records, then the National Archives "owns" them—but they'll almost certainly stay with Trump in his eventual presidential library. That's the bureaucratic dispute. That's it. This is not any crime (the Presidential Records Act is not a criminal statute), let alone one requiring a 30-person FBI brigade and unprecedented raid of a former president's home and office. It is routine for any Office of the Former President to negotiate with the National Archives. The Archives could have also alerted Congress. The Biden Justice Department could have filed a civil lawsuit. Or the Biden Justice Department could have sought more subpoenas. Instead, DOJ went nuclear, with its unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful home raid—even knowing Trump had already been holding these records at Mar-a-Lago for 18 months. So why now? To put this in perspective, former President Bill Clinton stole more than $190,000 in china, flatware, rugs, sofas, and other personal gifts from the White House. The Clintons eventually caved to public pressure and paid $86,000 for the items. There was no FBI raid. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set up an illegal home server containing some of our nation's most classified records. She openly admitted to stealing and destroying records herself, putting our national security at risk. There was no FBI raid. In fact, the FBI never even questioned her. To add insult to injury, the Biden Justice Department obtained this unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful home raid warrant from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart of West Palm Beach. Reinhart had just recently recused himself on June 22, 2022, in Trump's civil lawsuit against Hillary Clinton. What's more, in 2017, Reinhart blasted Trump's integrity on Facebook: "Donald Trump doesn't have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis's feet." So, what changed over the last two months to make Reinhart's clear judicial bias (somehow) go away? FBI Director Christopher Wray recently testified that the FBI was too busy to stop dangerous and illegal intimidation campaigns outside Supreme Court justices' homes. This was after an attempted assassin was thankfully arrested outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh's home. The FBI apparently didn't have the time to investigate actual threats to the lives of constitutional officers, but it had plenty of time to raid the home of a former president over an 18-month-old records dispute—with which Trump publicly stated he was fully cooperating. Attorney General Garland attempted to defend the indefensible in his political press conference last Thursday. Garland left more questions than answers. As a former federal judge and prosecutor, he should be ashamed of himself for so recklessly politicizing the Justice Department. And the politicized, highly inappropriate, inaccurate leaks out of the Justice Department about the underlying grand jury investigation further demonstrate the Biden regime is out of control in its pursuit of punishing a past and likely-future political rival of President Biden. House Republicans must impeach Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray for their unprecedented and destructive politicization of the Justice Department, when they reclaim power in January. And over the long term, House and Senate Republicans must dismantle and rebuild the FBI, so political raids like this never happen again. We cannot allow our law enforcement agencies to become third-world political hit squads. https://www.newsweek.com/garland-wray-must-impeached-unconscionable-trump-raid-opinion-1733523 They call Trump and Trump supporters fascists but cheer using law enforcement agencies to carry out political hit jobs on their political opponents.

4 star OT at Thompson high school in Alabaster committed to Michigan State yesterday. I guess we backed off recruiting him awhile back?

$5 Cam QB $4 Kerryon RB $3 CJ Uzomah TE $2 Shon Coleman OL $1 Ryan Davis WR

The inquiry itself was legitimate. It wasn't done to 'get' Harsin, it was more meant to maybe 'correct' Harsin, clear the air, and get things smoothed out. Some in the PTB; however, were likely the one's who hijacked the process by leaking that there was an investigation about Harsin to the public and then the rumors that were stirred up after it was leaked spread from that. I think Harsin's use of the word 'unfounded' can be viewed as throwing off on more than just the PTB. Probably should have just said that some tried to use inquiry to attack me by leaking salacious things out that weren't true instead of saying the whole thing to begin with was 'unfounded'. Harsin has a right to be pissed about the rumors that were put out insinuating an improper relationship but I don't go along with dismissing the whole thing outright. Saying the inquiry was 'unfounded' means he doesn't think the investigation itself was warranted and should have been swept under the rug and not taken seriously. From what's been put out there publicly, it was multiple complaints made by players/coaches. The university has an obligation to look into complaints made by multiple people in the program against the head coach. Just because they investigated the complaints didn't automatically mean that Harsin was guilty of everything that was mentioned in the complaints. Not addressing the complaints could have opened up the university to all sorts of potential problems if they didn't address it.