Auburnfan91

Prosecutor's office declines charges in shooting death of KCMO firefighter citing self-defense The woman who pulled the trigger has been released from custody Updated: 4:14 PM CDT Oct 18, 2022 KMBC 9 News Staff INDEPENDENCE, Mo. — The Jackson County, Missouri, Prosecutor's Office announced Tuesday that it will not be filing charges in the shooting death of an off-duty Kansas City, Missouri, firefighter at an Independence gas station. Anthony Santi, 41, was off duty on Oct. 6 and was at a convenience store in Independence when witnesses said Santi heard a man disrespect a female cashier inside the store. Santi reportedly stood up for the woman. Police say 23-year-old Ja'von Taylor became agitated and went outside to retrieve a gun from his car. Police say there was a fight between the two men inside the store over the weapon. They also say the woman who was with Taylor at one point gets the gun and then fires the fatal shot killing Santi. Taylor faces federal felony charges for possession of a firearm. However, the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office announced Tuesday that it will not be seeking additional charges against Taylor, or against the woman who allegedly fired the fatal shot, citing self-defense. In a statement, the prosecutor's office said, "We grieve with the family and community over this tragic loss of life of Mr. Santi. "Missouri law governs this case, specifically self-defense and defense of others, leading us to decline charges after a careful review." The woman involved was released from custody last week pending a review from the prosecutor's office. https://www.kmbc.com/article/independence-missouri-shooting-kcmo-firefighter-anthony-santi-charges/41693134 So self defense is now arguing with a cashier, going out and getting a gun out of your car and then when you're getting whooped by someone trying to stop you, a friend grabs the gun from your hand while your on the ground and shoots the person on top of you. This is entirely the Jackson County's Prosecutor's Office call to not bring charges. The self defense law in Missouri doesn't justify someone escalating the situation by not retreating and getting a gun to use. Taylor was the aggressor in this situation. The self defense law doesn't apply in this situation but the county prosecutor doesn't care.

RealClearPolitics Polling Accountability Initiative By RealClearPolitics RealClearPolitics Polling Accountability Initiative As a leader in political polling and election coverage for two decades, RealClearPolitics is announcing an initiative to improve public trust and confidence in political polling. Since pioneering the RCP Poll Average in 2002, the public opinion survey industry has undergone momentous changes and faced a series of challenges in a profoundly altered political landscape. Twenty years ago, Facebook and Twitter did not exist. The iPhone did not exist. The percentage of households with landlines has dropped from 90% in 2004 to just 40% today. Over the same period, the number of Americans owning cell phones has skyrocketed to 97%. There have been many news stories over the last several months questioning whether polling is broken in the United States. While there are certainly challenges in the polling industry, it is not entirely accurate to suggest polling is broken. There are many quality pollsters and media outlets that are doing excellent work in a constantly changing technological and political environment. However, there are also pollsters and news organizations that are doing less-than-stellar work and, unfortunately, many of the polls from these organizations receive a disproportionate amount of attention. To help address this problem, in the coming weeks RealClearPolitics will be rolling out a beta version ranking polling organizations. RCP will rank pollsters by their performance in recent elections, and will of course evaluate their performance in the 2022 mid-term election in just under a month. RCP’s goal here is simple. Accuracy is the foundational bedrock of public trust. To that end we will be evaluating pollsters almost exclusively on one metric – accuracy in reflecting the actual results. Our hope is that by bringing attention to the most accurate polling firms and organizations, as well as shining a light on firms releasing less accurate surveys, we will help bring accountability to political polling that has been lacking in recent election cycles. It is our hope and belief that this effort will serve as a positive and constructive force that will improve the quality of political and media polling in the United States. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/10/13/realclearpolitics_polling_accountability_initiative_148320.html

But she's never brought up her sexual assault until Politico decided to run a story on her and somehow obtained those records.

House GOP contender claims opponent, Politico pubbed details of Iraq sex assault to discredit her By Mark Moore October 10, 2022 1:43pm An Iraq War veteran running for Congress in Indiana has accused her Democratic opponent and Politico of “illegally” revealing details of her sexual assault in order to paint her as a “failed military officer.” Jennifer-Ruth Green, who is running against Rep. Frank Mrvan in Indiana’s 1st Congressional District, was profiled by reporter Adam Wren in a Friday article that noted she was one of 15 black female cadets who graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2005 and was assigned to a special investigations unit in Iraq working to neutralize terrorist and espionage threats. During a visit to Iraq’s national training center with other officers, Green left the group to climb a guard tower and was confronted by an Iraqi serviceman who grabbed her breast and exposed himself, the report said, citing official records. An evaluation of the incident faulted Green for “wandering away” from the group, the report added, and the criticism hindered her ability to rise in the ranks. Green, who Politico reported has since joined the Indiana Air National Guard and received “consistently high evaluations,” acknowledged the incident and accused Mrvan’s campaign of trying to smear her. “I’m a survivor of sexual trauma in the military. I am being forced to share this information outside of my own timeline and for the first time publicly because my Congressman, Frank Mrvan, and his cronies illegally obtained my military records describing my sexual assault,” Green said in a statement released on Twitter Sunday. “His team fished the details of my assault to different news outlets, asking them to share misinformation to portray me as a failed military officer who lacks integrity. This is false,” she continued. Green also said she believes her military career was “intentionally derailed” after she reported the assault despite being advised by some in her unit to keep it quiet. “The paperwork Congressman Mrvan illegally obtained contains information that reflects me in a negative light,” she said. Green said she has appealed the incident with the military and it has been settled. The candidate also said she has written to the local US attorney, the Air Force inspector general and the Pentagon to ask them to launch a criminal investigation into the release of her personnel file. “I am saddened to have to share publicly one of the most private events of my life, and I’m even more saddened that Congressman Mrvan … would engage in or tolerate this despicable behavior from his campaign and his allies. It’s unacceptable for every vet, it’s unacceptable for every woman, and it’s unacceptable for anyone who has ever been a victim of sexual assault,” she said. Mrvan’s offices in Washington, DC, and Indiana did not respond to requests for comment. Green told Fox News Digital that Politico ignored her appeals not to publish the information about the sexual assault. “They did what they wanted, got what they wanted,” Green said, adding that the outlet used the information “despite having clear interaction and engagement and telling them that the records were illegally obtained.” Politico told Fox News Digital in a statement that the records related to Green were “publicly available documents” and that Green’s campaign cooperated with the story and provided additional documents from her military career. “This story is an incredibly nuanced, deeply reported piece that looks at the totality of Ms. Green’s military career, which her team has placed at the forefront of her campaign,” said Brad Dayspring, Politico vice president of marketing and communications. “The military records in question are publicly available documents that can be obtained by a standard FOIA request,” he added. According to the National Archives website, the public can only access certain information from official military personnel files — including a veteran’s name, branch of service, dates of service, final rank, military education level, eligibility for awards and decorations, and court-martial transcripts — without violating living individuals’ privacy. The release of other information must be authorized by the veteran or their next of kin if they are dead. The 1st District, located in northwestern Indiana and covering the heavily Democratic cities of Gary and Hammond, has not elected a Republican to Congress since 1928. Mrvan was elected in 2020 to succeed the retiring Pete Visclosky, who was first elected to the House in 1984. https://nypost.com/2022/10/10/house-gop-contender-jennifer-ruth-green-claims-opponent-leaked-records-of-iraq-sex-assault-to-discredit-her/ The Politico vp of marketing and communications is wrong. As the article states and links to the National Archives website, the public can only access certain information from military records. It does not include records for sexual assault. Somehow though Politico obtained those records and published them against Green's consent.

Andrew McCabe lied under oath when he testified in Novermber 2020. He said he didn't know who Igor Danchenko was. It has since come to light because of the Durham probe that Danchenko was being paid as an FBI informant from March 2017 to October 2020. Here's Andrew McCabe lying under oath, starts at 2:47:33 So the FBI is paying Danchenko as a source/informant and McCabe; who was Deputy Director of the FBI until January 2018, claims he doesn't know who he is. McCabe's explanation under oath was that the name was redacted in the Senate's report of the FBI's interview with Danchenko.... lol It's all a big joke. The FBI has access to unredacted documents. They know full well who Danchenko was but they'd rather lie because they know that liberals and the media will feverishly defend the FBI against attacks and criticism from MAGA Republicans.

Main Steele dossier source Igor Danchenko was FBI operative: court document By Emily Crane September 14, 2022 3:50pm Updated The Russian analyst charged with lying to the FBI about his role in the infamous “Steele dossier” was allegedly a paid confidential human source for the agency, a newly unsealed court filing revealed Tuesday. Igor Danchenko became a paid FBI informant in March 2017 — months after the feds started questioning him over his involvement in the dossier on former President Donald Trump, according to the filing by special counsel John Durham. Danchenko, a Russian-born lawyer living in Virginia, was arrested in November last year as part of Durham’s probe into the origins of the FBI’s Russia investigation. He pleaded not guilty to five counts of making false statements about some of the information he gave to Christopher Steele, the former British spy who was paid by Democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign for intelligence on ties between Russia and Trump. “From January 2017 through October 2020, and as part of its efforts to determine the truth or falsity of specific information in the Steele reports, the FBI conducted multiple interviews of the defendant regarding, among other things, the information that he had provided to Steele,” Durham said in the court filing. “In March 2017, the FBI signed the defendant up as a paid confidential human source of the FBI. The FBI terminated its source relationship with the defendant in October 2020 … The defendant lied to FBI agents during several of these interviews.” It wasn’t clear from the court filing what information the FBI was paying Danchenko for. In his work for Steele’s private intelligence firm, Danchenko was tasked with collecting information about Trump’s possible links to Russia — some of which was used in the since-discredited dossier. According to Danchenko’s indictment, he lied about several of the claims — including that Russia had a tape of Trump in a Moscow hotel room with prostitutes who were urinating on a bed where President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama had previously stayed. Danchenko later admitted to the FBI that the scandalous detail — like much of his info in the report — was based on “rumor and speculation.” The FBI had interviewed him several times between January and November 2017 as they attempted to vet the materials included in the dossier, but they were unable to “confirm or corroborate” most of the allegations, according to his indictment. Durham, the special counsel, was appointed by Trump’s Justice Department in May 2019 after the president said the investigation into his purported campaign ties to Russia was a witch hunt. https://nypost.com/2022/09/14/main-steele-dossier-source-igor-danchenko-was-fbi-operative/

You don't mind sweeping all the Russiagate bs under the rug and acting like none of it was debunked even though so much was proven to be false. Durham had enough evidence that he charged multiple people with lying. Durham chose the safest route in order to protect the institution. He went after low hanging fruit and during trials tried to make the FBI the victim of the people he charged with lying.

You see what you want to see.

Durham has been a dud. I'll admit but it's now obvious that it was intended to be. There was never going to be any accountability for those in the FBI responsible for facilitating lies and pushing the lies of Russiagate because Durham has tried to sell a fictional version of the FBI's role. The main argument that Durham made in court(that led to acquittal instead of conviction) during the Sussman trial was that the FBI was a victim to bad actors providing false information in investigating Trump-Russia connections instead of reality where the FBI were co-conspirators and complicit in spreading false information. Durham painting the FBI as victims of Russiagate should be a big red flag to anyone(mostly the Right) that was hoping for some accountability.

84-year-old Michigan anti-abortion canvasser shot while going door-to-door Published September 29, 2022 1:22PM ODESSA TOWNSHIP, Mich. (AP) - A man shot and wounded an 84-year-old Michigan woman who was canvassing door-to-door against a proposed constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right to abortion in the state. The State Police are investigating the Sept. 20 shooting at a home in Odessa Township, a community about 130 miles (209 kilometers) northwest of Detroit. The canvasser, Joan Jacobson, told investigators that she was asking a woman at the home to vote against Proposal 3 in November when she was told to leave, The Detroit News reported Thursday. She said she was headed to her car when she saw a man standing next to the woman. "And the next thing I knew, I heard a shot and I felt some pain," Jacobson told the newspaper. "I was just stunned. The pain was in my back, and it was very severe." Jacobson said she then drove to a local police station and was later treated at a hospital. She didn’t immediately reply to a Thursday email from The Associated Press seeking comment. Richard Harvey, 74, said he shot Jacobson accidentally while she was arguing with his wife after being told numerous times to leave the property, WOOD-TV reported. "This lady comes up to me, knocks on my door, and says she’s from some coalition to save women and babies," Sharon Harvey told the TV station. "She needed me to vote ‘no’ on Proposal 3. I told her I can’t do that. She would not take the fact that I was going to vote ‘yes’ on Proposal 3 as an answer. She didn’t care." Sharon Harvey said she told the woman to leave their property, but the woman responded, "Well, I have a right to be here," before eventually stepping off the couple’s porch. "It got louder and louder. My husband was in the barn and he heard it," Sharon Harvey said. Richard Harvey told the television station that he first fired a warning shot at a tree with his wife’s .22-caliber rifle. He said the woman continued "ranting and raving" and waving a clipboard. "I’m thinking she’s going to smack Sharon with it," Richard Harvey said. "So without thinking, I went to club it away with the rifle and my finger was still in the trigger guard. It went off and hit her." Jacobson said she never waved her clipboard. "I didn’t want to hurt her or him," she said of the Harveys. The AP was unable to contact Richard or Sharon Harvey. The State Police’s Lakeview Post is investigating the shooting. Ionia County Prosecutor Kyle Butler said Thursday that no warrant request had been filed with his office. "I’ve been in constant discussion with the Michigan State Police and the detective sergeant assigned as the primary investigator on the case since Sept. 20," Butler told The Associated Press. "I have a pretty decent idea about what is being alleged to have occurred. We’re going to wait until the finer details of the facts of the situation are flushed out a bit more." Right to Life of Michigan described Jacobson as a long-time volunteer for the organization. "No one should fear violence while peacefully exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech," Anna Visser, a spokeswoman for Right to Life of Michigan, said in a release. "This 84-year old woman is hardly imposing, standing about 5 feet tall. The idea that shooting this woman is at all excusable is a dangerous claim for Americans across the country who engage in peaceful door-to-door canvassing." Abortion rights has become one of the most polarizing issues in Michigan and across the nation heading into the Nov. 8 general election. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade which guaranteed a woman’s constitutional protections for abortion. It has led to abortion bans in a number of states. Abortion rights would be constitutionally guaranteed in Michigan if Proposal 3 passes on Nov. 8. A 1931 state law makes it a crime to perform most abortions, but the law was suspended in May and a judge this week followed up by striking it down as unconstitutional. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/84-year-old-michigan-anti-abortion-canvasser-shot-while-going-door-to-door

Yes they do. The Nick Saban show comes on Sunday nights at 10:30pm on my local ABC affiliate during football season. https://rolltide.com/sports/2016/8/25/crimson-tide-radio-and-television-information.aspx

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.

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.

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.

But that's not the point. The point is that an inquiry/investigation was warranted.