Open Forum

**WTF891** · 09-03-2024, 05:36 PM

Forget the Teamsters VS. Everyone shirts. We could save lot's of money just printing one of these for the little Leprichaun. Who needs a PR firm?
PAB.jpg

**DanaCos** · 09-04-2024, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Graveyard

Hi Dana, like I said vote for whom ever you want for what ever reason. I sure you have you reasons to vote for just like I have my reasons to vote against and we would likely argue until the cows come home. If this election was just about a difference in policies would be on thing, but its more, much more. How do I say that? By comparing past actions, current comments and future-plans for unions/workers by each candidate. As a union member the side I support is the easiest choice ever. As I rank my reasons to vote for or against from least to most important, defeating an anti-union/worker candidate will always be number one for me.

The Teamsters, despite our faults, have all ways stood for improved working conditions and workers' rights. Now, because of O’Brien’s lack of leadership by providing a green light instead of educating members of the threat is creating a “whole new demographic” that will vote against their own best interest as union members. The result, we destroy ourselves from within. While Mr. Teamster seems to be proud of this path, I will call this out whenever I see it.

I support your right to vote for whom ever for what ever reason. However, in this election at this time, no disrespect intended, I will disagree beyond when the cows come home.

I appreciate that and much respect to all who disagree with me.

I will just say that I think we (as a collective in our union) have short memories. Kamala Harris and this ass hat Tim Walz want to expand the Affordable Care Act. As much here know, I was the driving force behind the Vote No Movement and I was fighting to help keep our good healthcare. The ACA had us as taxpayers paying out of our fund to help fund other people's Medicare for all. That had a drastic affect on us. We as union dues paying members should have fought that rhetoric tooth and nail. Even Hoffa who originally proposed his support reversed and admitted the damage it would have done to our unions moving forward. Also, not one Democrat I see wants to scoop all the "illegals" who are sucking off our government resources and send them back to their place of citizenship. This disastrous Democrat policy is slowly having an impact to our unions. I have also mentioned before that rallying for higher minimum wages should never be a union positive perspective. Who needs unions when we have Democrats who push for their increases. Tell these sponges to go join a union. Nobody in our union should ever be pushing for a Marxist style government.

And, as far as Trump goes, I have said this in the past, he is an ass hole. He stole from contractors and used the laws and hid behind his lawyers to do so. I don't hate him for being a racist which he is NOT. Anybody who supported Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is definitely far from it. Christ, he gave Jesse an office and money to run for President. Trump has done plenty for blacks and our military. I support the ideals not the man. You can scour my Facebook and see what choice words I had for the man.

Our unions should not be trumpeting the causes of this welfare state, period. If people want to raise their wages, they should put that up to their employer not government. Go form or join a union.

And, I will say there is no fuckin' way I could vote for a guy like Tim Walz and not just for the ACA issue either. I can unequivocally say and with out a doubt that he committed stolen valor. I was a 31 Kilo (Combat Signaler) that requires a 97% or higher score on the ASVAB test and acquired a top secret security clearance. I also was elected 3 years in a row and selected once as Soldier of the Year from my Battalion. I was chosen to be sent to PLDC (Primary Leadership Development Course) but I went in a different direction and started a business. With all that being said, Tim Walz was a 13 Foxtrot (Artillery Forward Observer) that requires a relatively high score too with a Secret Security Clearance level. He reached the rank of E-8 Master Seargent which is fantastic. Instead of being honest, he printed that he was 3 ranks higher than he retired as. Just because you may have acted as a Command Seargent Major, it doesn't make you one. The highest NCO rank we had in our unit was a first Seargent and we had Seargent First Class NCO's filling that roll at times. This was not a grammatical error, like he is saying now. It is like a supervisor filling in for a vacationing Manager at work. It doesn't make them a manager and they shouldn't use it on their resume either. Like everything I listed above, I should only list on mine that I served as a communication specialist. Veterans know what you may or may not have achieved. Walz wants to act like a jack wagon at an American Legion and use his faked rank and past to try to say he doesn't want people to carry weapons of war like he had. We already have laws in place to insure criminals don't possess automatic weapons. So, in a nutshell Tim Walz should have put his real record and rank out there and it would have been respected. Good to hear him say he gave the NRA back their money. I know real organizations like the GOA and 2nd Amendment foundation wouldn't have sent a dime to a quack like Tim.

**Graveyard** · 09-05-2024, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by DanaCos

I appreciate that and much respect to all who disagree with me.

I will just say that I think we (as a collective in our union) have short memories. Kamala Harris and this ass hat Tim Walz want to expand the Affordable Care Act. As much here know, I was the driving force behind the Vote No Movement and I was fighting to help keep our good healthcare. The ACA had us as taxpayers paying out of our fund to help fund other people's Medicare for all. That had a drastic affect on us. We as union dues paying members should have fought that rhetoric tooth and nail. Even Hoffa who originally proposed his support reversed and admitted the damage it would have done to our unions moving forward. Also, not one Democrat I see wants to scoop all the "illegals" who are sucking off our government resources and send them back to their place of citizenship. This disastrous Democrat policy is slowly having an impact to our unions. I have also mentioned before that rallying for higher minimum wages should never be a union positive perspective. Who needs unions when we have Democrats who push for their increases. Tell these sponges to go join a union. Nobody in our union should ever be pushing for a Marxist style government.

And, as far as Trump goes, I have said this in the past, he is an ass hole. He stole from contractors and used the laws and hid behind his lawyers to do so. I don't hate him for being a racist which he is NOT. Anybody who supported Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is definitely far from it. Christ, he gave Jesse an office and money to run for President. Trump has done plenty for blacks and our military. I support the ideals not the man. You can scour my Facebook and see what choice words I had for the man.

Our unions should not be trumpeting the causes of this welfare state, period. If people want to raise their wages, they should put that up to their employer not government. Go form or join a union.

And, I will say there is no fuckin' way I could vote for a guy like Tim Walz and not just for the ACA issue either. I can unequivocally say and with out a doubt that he committed stolen valor. I was a 31 Kilo (Combat Signaler) that requires a 97% or higher score on the ASVAB test and acquired a top secret security clearance. I also was elected 3 years in a row and selected once as Soldier of the Year from my Battalion. I was chosen to be sent to PLDC (Primary Leadership Development Course) but I went in a different direction and started a business. With all that being said, Tim Walz was a 13 Foxtrot (Artillery Forward Observer) that requires a relatively high score too with a Secret Security Clearance level. He reached the rank of E-8 Master Seargent which is fantastic. Instead of being honest, he printed that he was 3 ranks higher than he retired as. Just because you may have acted as a Command Seargent Major, it doesn't make you one. The highest NCO rank we had in our unit was a first Seargent and we had Seargent First Class NCO's filling that roll at times. This was not a grammatical error, like he is saying now. It is like a supervisor filling in for a vacationing Manager at work. It doesn't make them a manager and they shouldn't use it on their resume either. Like everything I listed above, I should only list on mine that I served as a communication specialist. Veterans know what you may or may not have achieved. Walz wants to act like a jack wagon at an American Legion and use his faked rank and past to try to say he doesn't want people to carry weapons of war like he had. We already have laws in place to insure criminals don't possess automatic weapons. So, in a nutshell Tim Walz should have put his real record and rank out there and it would have been respected. Good to hear him say he gave the NRA back their money. I know real organizations like the GOA and 2nd Amendment foundation wouldn't have sent a dime to a quack like Tim.

Hi Dana, like I said, vote for whom ever you want for whatever reason, its none of my damn business. I do admire your willingness to take a stand for what you believe in.

Your comments on Tim Walz contain a lot of negative info and you raised my curiosity so I thought I would look for myself. Here is what I found:

New York Times Aug. 6, 2024: “He (Walz) got involved in politics after being barred from a George W. Bush rally. In 2004, when he was still a teacher, he accompanied students to the rally and objected when they were denied entrance for having volunteered for Democrats.”

Associated Press article, August 8, 2024: “There is no evidence that Walz timed his departure in 2005 with the intent of avoiding deployment. But the fact remains that he left ahead of his unit’s departure.”

Wikipedia: In 2006 Waltz was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for Minnesota’s 1^st congressional district defeating six-term Republican incumbent Gil Gutknecht

Washington, DC, January 9, 2017: House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe, M.D. (R-Tenn.) released the following statement after Rep. Tim Walz was elected Ranking Member of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs: “I’m thrilled to hear that my good friend and fellow veteran Rep. Tim Walz has been elected Ranking Member of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Rep. Walz has been a tireless advocate for veterans, and I know he will continue that fight as Ranking Member. I look forward to working alongside Rep. Walz as we strive on both sides of the aisle to improve the lives of our nation’s heroes."

FOX News KMSP November 11, 2020: Governor Walz announces end to veteran homelessness in 5 metro counties. Minnesota is “Becoming the fourth state in the country to end veteran homelessness that has been a priority of our Administration since day one. Today’s announcement, on a day we honor all veterans, is a major accomplishment toward that goal,” Governor Walz said in the release.

Rolling Stone, August 28, 2024, Falling Flat-“The Right’s Increasingly Pathetic Attacks Against Tim Walz, Explained”-“In the aftermath of the Democratic convention in Chicago, Walz is the only member of either ticket with a positive approval rating, and his polling (42 percent favorable, 36 percent unfavorable) is almost precisely the inverse of Trump’s drag-on-the-ticket running mate, J.D. Vance (44 percent unfavorable, 38 percent favorable.) So naturally the MAGA movement wants to take Walz down a peg.”

According to the Nebraska Army National Guard, Walz enlisted in April 1981 — just two days after his 17th birthday and retired 24 years later in 2005. He was deployed to Italy from 2003 to 2004 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and received the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service and two Army Achievement Medals.

I know, fake news, right!

So Walz at 41 years old, after 24 years of service, deployed, awards, retires in 2005, in 2006 wins a congressional seat, wins praise from across the aisle as “a tireless advocate for veterans”, as governor announces an end of veteran homelessness in five suburban metro area counties that has been a priority of his Administration, and all you can say is “ass hat” and “quack”. I disagree.

Perhaps we should look at your presidential candidate’s service record….oh yea, bone spurs really do hurt.

**sammo1245** · 09-06-2024, 05:03 AM

But, they did invite the Teamsters. A contingent of RETIRED TEAMSTERS were there, thanking Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for saving Union multiemployer pensions.

It was not the DNC that disrespected the Teamsters, it was sean Obrien who betrayed Joe Biden and all Retired Teamsters

If the DNC did the math, there are more than 500,000 retired Teamsters, who will vote.

Based Upon the Teamster voter turnout in the last IBT election, Obrien might influence about 100,000 potential voters.

**DanaCos** · 09-06-2024, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Graveyard

Hi Dana, like I said, vote for whom ever you want for whatever reason, its none of my damn business. I do admire your willingness to take a stand for what you believe in.

Your comments on Tim Walz contain a lot of negative info and you raised my curiosity so I thought I would look for myself. Here is what I found:

New York Times Aug. 6, 2024: “He (Walz) got involved in politics after being barred from a George W. Bush rally. In 2004, when he was still a teacher, he accompanied students to the rally and objected when they were denied entrance for having volunteered for Democrats.”

Associated Press article, August 8, 2024: “There is no evidence that Walz timed his departure in 2005 with the intent of avoiding deployment. But the fact remains that he left ahead of his unit’s departure.”

Wikipedia: In 2006 Waltz was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for Minnesota’s 1^st congressional district defeating six-term Republican incumbent Gil Gutknecht

Washington, DC, January 9, 2017: House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe, M.D. (R-Tenn.) released the following statement after Rep. Tim Walz was elected Ranking Member of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs: “I’m thrilled to hear that my good friend and fellow veteran Rep. Tim Walz has been elected Ranking Member of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Rep. Walz has been a tireless advocate for veterans, and I know he will continue that fight as Ranking Member. I look forward to working alongside Rep. Walz as we strive on both sides of the aisle to improve the lives of our nation’s heroes."

FOX News KMSP November 11, 2020: Governor Walz announces end to veteran homelessness in 5 metro counties. Minnesota is “Becoming the fourth state in the country to end veteran homelessness that has been a priority of our Administration since day one. Today’s announcement, on a day we honor all veterans, is a major accomplishment toward that goal,” Governor Walz said in the release.

Rolling Stone, August 28, 2024, Falling Flat-“The Right’s Increasingly Pathetic Attacks Against Tim Walz, Explained”-“In the aftermath of the Democratic convention in Chicago, Walz is the only member of either ticket with a positive approval rating, and his polling (42 percent favorable, 36 percent unfavorable) is almost precisely the inverse of Trump’s drag-on-the-ticket running mate, J.D. Vance (44 percent unfavorable, 38 percent favorable.) So naturally the MAGA movement wants to take Walz down a peg.”

According to the Nebraska Army National Guard, Walz enlisted in April 1981 — just two days after his 17th birthday and retired 24 years later in 2005. He was deployed to Italy from 2003 to 2004 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and received the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service and two Army Achievement Medals.

I know, fake news, right!

So Walz at 41 years old, after 24 years of service, deployed, awards, retires in 2005, in 2006 wins a congressional seat, wins praise from across the aisle as “a tireless advocate for veterans”, as governor announces an end of veteran homelessness in five suburban metro area counties that has been a priority of his Administration, and all you can say is “ass hat” and “quack”. I disagree.

Perhaps we should look at your presidential candidate’s service record….oh yea, bone spurs really do hurt.

Nobody is attacking his record of being a veteran. What is being pointed out is that the man used a false rank in his bio multiple times. Yes, that is stolen valor. What I have said is that he was a Master Seargent not a Command Seargent Major. There is a huge difference. He put it out there that he was a retired CSM. He committed a crime. I never mentioned anything about his early departure from service. That's his prerogative. I told you about my service as an example and I lack a lot more than others. I did put in my campaign literature that I was an "Army Veteran (Combat Signaler)" That's it. A marine and I got in a discussion about my service and he knew all about my MOS and knew that I was a valuable asset. No need to embellish anything because there isn't much more to it.

As far as Trump goes, I own nothing that has his name on it. I refuse to wear it. I wouldn't doubt he avoided service BUT he has offered a lot to veterans even before running for office. Even when in office, he fixed the VA and made sure they were well taken care of. Biden? Did we forget that he said "Clap you stupid bastards!"? You don't check your watch when service men/women that you were responsible for are being carried off a c-130! If I remember correctly Clinton admitted in a letter he dodged the same draft. Bush W too.

Thanks again for the compliments!

*** Let me also say, yes the man is a quack. His wife said they kept their windows open to smell the rubber burning while people lost their businesses to arson. Who in their right mind thinks like that? A quack and ass hat.

**Graveyard** · 09-08-2024, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by DanaCos

Nobody is attacking his record of being a veteran. What is being pointed out is that the man used a false rank in his bio multiple times. Yes, that is stolen valor. What I have said is that he was a Master Seargent not a Command Seargent Major. There is a huge difference. He put it out there that he was a retired CSM. He committed a crime. I never mentioned anything about his early departure from service. That's his prerogative. I told you about my service as an example and I lack a lot more than others. I did put in my campaign literature that I was an "Army Veteran (Combat Signaler)" That's it. A marine and I got in a discussion about my service and he knew all about my MOS and knew that I was a valuable asset. No need to embellish anything because there isn't much more to it.

As far as Trump goes, I own nothing that has his name on it. I refuse to wear it. I wouldn't doubt he avoided service BUT he has offered a lot to veterans even before running for office. Even when in office, he fixed the VA and made sure they were well taken care of. Biden? Did we forget that he said "Clap you stupid bastards!"? You don't check your watch when service men/women that you were responsible for are being carried off a c-130! If I remember correctly Clinton admitted in a letter he dodged the same draft. Bush W too.

Thanks again for the compliments!

*** Let me also say, yes the man is a quack. His wife said they kept their windows open to smell the rubber burning while people lost their businesses to arson. Who in their right mind thinks like that? A quack and ass hat.

Hi Dana, you seem to be high maintenance, its OK so am I, just on the other side of the fence. A shame, but reality. I sorry if I misunderstood. I also apologize for the length of this post as there is so much readily available supporting information it was hard to limit.

To sum up your complaint about Walz, misleading (Lie) committed a crime.
I agree, if he falsely, purposely upgraded his rank should be held accountable. Although, I am a little confused as to your standard for accountability.

While I agree with accountability for lies, your candidate, as reported in various news outlet including Washington Post January 24, 2021, “Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years. When The Post Fact Checker team first started cataloguing President Donald Trump’s false or misleading claims, we recorded 492 suspect claims in the first 100 days of his presidency. On Nov. 2 alone, the day before the 2020 vote, Trump made 503 false or misleading claims as he barnstormed across the country in a desperate effort to win reelection. This astonishing jump in falsehoods is the story of Trump’s tumultuous reign. By the end of his term, Trump had accumulated 30,573 untruths during his presidency averaging about 21 erroneous claims a day."

Wonder what the number is 3-1/2 years later in September 2024?

USA Today, Sept 5, 2024: “ After years of millions of dollars raised off ( My words, The Big Lie, He won by a Landslide, Rigged Election, Stop the Steal attack on January 6^th) Trump admits he lost in 2020, Former President Donald Trump's recent acknowledgment that he lost the 2020 election has rattled prominent far-right figures, with some saying they will lead a campaign to keep him from being elected in 2024. At least three times in recent weeks Trump, the 2024 Republican party nominee, has acknowledged that he lost in 2020 by a whisker."

How many people did vote for Trump Vs Biden in 2020?
Trump received about 74 million votes in the 2020 presidential election, according to the Federal Election Commission. That's almost 47% of the popular vote. He won 74,223,369 votes, 232 electoral votes – 270 are needed to win. His opponent and current president Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes , 81,282,916 votes.
Biden 81,282,916 popular votes 306 electoral votes
Trump 74,232,369 popular votes 232 electoral votes
Won by 7,050,547 more popular votes 74 more electoral votes
That is a mighty thick “whisker”.

Crimes,
By POLITICO Staff | 6/13/2023 1 AM PDT | Updated 8/2/2024 7:35 AM PDT
For the first 234 years of the nation’s history, no American president or former president had ever been indicted. That changed in 2023. Over a five-month span, former President Donald Trump was charged in four criminal cases. Together, the indictments accused him of wide-ranging criminal conduct before, during and after his presidency. One of those indictments has now led to the first criminal conviction of a former president; the other three remain pending. This is POLITICO’s guide to the four Trump criminal cases, and
Various other news outlets:
The Federal Election Interference Case The Georgia Election Interference Case
The Classified Documents Case The Hush Money Case
Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M
Donald Trump must pay an additional $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll in defamation case, jury says
Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021
Feb 6, 2018 — A federal court approved a $25 million settlement with students who said they were duped by Donald Trump and his now-defunct Trump College
Trump Organization found guilty on all counts of criminal tax fraud.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in the Washington criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November election.

Are you delighted that a “Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents case over concerns with prosecutor’s appointment”? Do you agree with Clarence Thomas’s lone descent resulting in your candidate being the only person in the US that is above the law?

Once again, fake news, deep state, right?

If you need to say Walz is an ass hat and quack that’s your right,

Just as it would be my right to refer to your candidate as someone that continuously makes statements that are not true in order to deceive, twice impeached, four times indicted, liable for sex abuse-$85 million defamation, $25 million settlement for duping students-con man, guilty of criminal business tax fraud,

Simply put your candidate is a Convicted Felon, Sex Abuser, Looser, and should not be above the law.

Do you agree or disagree?

**Tony R Cochran** · 09-10-2024, 06:37 AM

O'Brien is an insult to the labor movement.

**DanaCos** · 09-11-2024, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Graveyard

Hi Dana, you seem to be high maintenance, its OK so am I, just on the other side of the fence. A shame, but reality. I sorry if I misunderstood. I also apologize for the length of this post as there is so much readily available supporting information it was hard to limit.

To sum up your complaint about Walz, misleading (Lie) committed a crime.
I agree, if he falsely, purposely upgraded his rank should be held accountable. Although, I am a little confused as to your standard for accountability.

While I agree with accountability for lies, your candidate, as reported in various news outlet including Washington Post January 24, 2021, “Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years. When The Post Fact Checker team first started cataloguing President Donald Trump’s false or misleading claims, we recorded 492 suspect claims in the first 100 days of his presidency. On Nov. 2 alone, the day before the 2020 vote, Trump made 503 false or misleading claims as he barnstormed across the country in a desperate effort to win reelection. This astonishing jump in falsehoods is the story of Trump’s tumultuous reign. By the end of his term, Trump had accumulated 30,573 untruths during his presidency averaging about 21 erroneous claims a day."

Wonder what the number is 3-1/2 years later in September 2024?

USA Today, Sept 5, 2024: “ After years of millions of dollars raised off ( My words, The Big Lie, He won by a Landslide, Rigged Election, Stop the Steal attack on January 6^th) Trump admits he lost in 2020, Former President Donald Trump's recent acknowledgment that he lost the 2020 election has rattled prominent far-right figures, with some saying they will lead a campaign to keep him from being elected in 2024. At least three times in recent weeks Trump, the 2024 Republican party nominee, has acknowledged that he lost in 2020 by a whisker."

How many people did vote for Trump Vs Biden in 2020?
Trump received about 74 million votes in the 2020 presidential election, according to the Federal Election Commission. That's almost 47% of the popular vote. He won 74,223,369 votes, 232 electoral votes – 270 are needed to win. His opponent and current president Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes , 81,282,916 votes.
Biden 81,282,916 popular votes 306 electoral votes
Trump 74,232,369 popular votes 232 electoral votes
Won by 7,050,547 more popular votes 74 more electoral votes
That is a mighty thick “whisker”.

Crimes,
By POLITICO Staff | 6/13/2023 1 AM PDT | Updated 8/2/2024 7:35 AM PDT
For the first 234 years of the nation’s history, no American president or former president had ever been indicted. That changed in 2023. Over a five-month span, former President Donald Trump was charged in four criminal cases. Together, the indictments accused him of wide-ranging criminal conduct before, during and after his presidency. One of those indictments has now led to the first criminal conviction of a former president; the other three remain pending. This is POLITICO’s guide to the four Trump criminal cases, and
Various other news outlets:
The Federal Election Interference Case The Georgia Election Interference Case
The Classified Documents Case The Hush Money Case
Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M
Donald Trump must pay an additional $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll in defamation case, jury says
Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021
Feb 6, 2018 — A federal court approved a $25 million settlement with students who said they were duped by Donald Trump and his now-defunct Trump College
Trump Organization found guilty on all counts of criminal tax fraud.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in the Washington criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November election.

Are you delighted that a “Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents case over concerns with prosecutor’s appointment”? Do you agree with Clarence Thomas’s lone descent resulting in your candidate being the only person in the US that is above the law?

Once again, fake news, deep state, right?

If you need to say Walz is an ass hat and quack that’s your right,

Just as it would be my right to refer to your candidate as someone that continuously makes statements that are not true in order to deceive, twice impeached, four times indicted, liable for sex abuse-$85 million defamation, $25 million settlement for duping students-con man, guilty of criminal business tax fraud,

Simply put your candidate is a Convicted Felon, Sex Abuser, Looser, and should not be above the law.

Do you agree or disagree?

High maintenance? I'll take that. I like to think I am consistent in what I say. I will try to dissect and answer your post as best I can because you asked questions in between news article talking points. I assume you are picking my brain in a respectful way. I think I have made it clear that I was never a fan of Donald Trump. I did vote for him twice but only changing my mind last minute. In the first election in 2016 I decided two weeks prior and the second I decided in the voting booth. Why? Because two names were on the ballot, Clinton and Biden. I believe I have said that I am a registered Libertarian. I am not party specific when it comes to voting but don't care much for many Democrats.

You brought up Tim Walz and then in another sentence talk about nobody being above the law. I think you answered your own question in this one post. All I will say is that he changed all his publications to read his proper rank and experience. Mr. Walz's actions also go to prove the claims to be correct. Grammatical error? I don't think so.

As far as the classified documents, Trump was investigated originally and the FBI advised former President Donald Trump to enhance the security measures for the storage of classified documents he kept there. The officials asked him to place a stronger lock on the storage room where some of the documents were being held. Trump and his team complied with this request by adding a padlock to the room. Then they raided the place two months later. So, what crime did he commit? You lost me there. Let's go back to the "nobody is above the law" statement. Did you see President Joe Biden's unsecure garage with "secret" documents laying all over the place? The ones you see in Mar-A-Lago were placed on the ground and photographed by the FBI not Trump. By the way, who classifies these documents? The President? So your point is lost with me. Let me give you a little perspective from me. I mentioned that I had a top secret security clearance. Had I ever misplaced documents or equipment like the KYK-13 with encryption keys, I would be prosecuted. You have people like Joe Biden with sensitive documents laying around a known crackhead son in his garage. Also, it was Hillary Clinton that admitted she had her maid faxing top secret documents. Above the law you say? Think we will ever hear about that 50 million in off shore accounts in the name of the Bidens? Nope, he will pardon himself and family. No doubt.

Again, I have told you before, Trump was never a candidate I would have voted for. After seeing what this administration has demonstrated, I will be voting for him now without a doubt. I think our discussion goes in many directions and I try to keep it specific to labor. I am not one of those pundits who screams for people to vote for Donald Trump. I see both of them are supporting fracking. That is something I do not support. It is an environmental disaster, and my parents were thankful to have great neighbors that know that fact. If you want to know about how I feel about abortion, green energy, global warming (climate change), etc. etc., I would love to tell but let's stick to labor. :-)

**Mr. Teamster** · 09-11-2024, 01:16 AM

Total insult. 1,3 million Teamsters matter.

**Graveyard** · 09-13-2024, 12:38 PM

Hi Dana, I will be delighted to discuss your candidates dismal track record on unions/working class. But first, if I may, respond to several comments you made in posts. Your comment “Yes, Biden is that dumb” for briefly wearing a Trump hat lacks reality, context or truth. Had you taken a few minutes to fact check you would have learned that, at the Shanksville PA (Where one of the 9/11 planes went down) Fire Station, Biden spoke about the country’s bipartisan unity after 9/11 and said we needed to get back to that. As a gesture, he gave a signed hat to a Trump supporter who then said that in the same spirit, POTUS should put on his Trump cap. Biden briefly wore it.

On a day of remembrance, a day when we as Americans should put their differences aside, Biden & a Trump supporter find common ground, even if only for a moment, and you attack, sad.

I am sure you thought your “cats” art work was humorous. To me this is support of degrading a group of people by your candidate, apparently without fact checking. Go ahead, fact check and let us know what you find.

I do apologize up front for my confusion over some of the things you say you believe in and the person(s) you support. I thought Libertarians advocated for the expansion of individual autonomy, political freedom, emphasizing the principles of equality before the law and the protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice.

Equality before the law? Other than your candidate, who else is above the law? The loss of women’s right to, freedom of choice, whether pro or con on the issue is a loss individual autonomy, core beliefs of Libertarians. Banning books because of disagreement is attacking freedom of speech and thought. Assaults on state voter rights or attempts to disenfranchise voters on a national level (Georgia-help find 11,780 votes, Stop the Steel, Jan 6^th) are attacks on political freedom. The loss of freedom of choice and individual autonomy, attacking freedom of speech, thought and political freedom are all products of the candidate you support and his party. Where is the outrage in any of this? This why I am confused when you want me to buy into, you don’t care much for democrats, because the they are destroying America!

Lastly, I must respond to your rendition the government's efforts to get sensitive documents back from Mar-a-Lago. Apparently, you must have forgotten a few dates and events, OK, more than a few. This is where fact checking come in handy, oh that’s right fake news, deep state, and now “news articles talking points.” I would think given your back ground you would want to dig deeper on this subject, instead, you tend to dismiss your candidate’s actions then quickly shift attention to those damn democrats.

Once again, I apologize for the length of this post and I will post the government's efforts to get sensitive documents back from Trump's Mar-a-Lago in 3 new posts. Again, I will be delighted to discuss your candidates dismal track record on unions/working class soon.

**Graveyard** · 09-13-2024, 12:46 PM

Part 1
It’s understood that your candidate’s handpicked federal judge dismissed the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, siding with defense lawyers who said the special counsel who filed the charges was illegally appointed by the Justice Department. Special counsel Jack Smith’s office has appealed the order, which could result in it eventually being overturned by a higher court as other decisions by this judge have been reversed. Odd, your candidate and his party cheered the special counsel appointment by the Justice Department that filed charges against Hunter Biden, during the same time-period. Not saying Hunter Biden should not have been charged. Wondering if you could explain why “appointments by the Justice Department” are legal in one case but illegal in another case.

Timeline: The government's efforts to get sensitive documents back from Trump's Mar-a-Lago
By Robert Legare, Arden Farhi, Melissa Quinn
June 9, 2023 / 6:17 PM EDT / CBS News
Washington — Former President Donald Trump has been charged by the Justice Department in connection with its investigation into his handling of sensitive government records recovered after he left the White House, marking the first time in U.S. history that a former president faces federal criminal charges.
The 38-count indictment naming Trump and aide Walt Nauta as defendants, unsealed Friday, comes in the wake of a lengthy effort by the National Archives and Records Administration to retrieve materials Trump had at his South Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago, after his presidency ended in January 2021.
Wrangling between Trump and the National Archives initially took place behind the scenes with secret subpoenas for the records and security camera footage, but the dispute burst into public view on Aug. 8, 2022, when the FBI conducted a court-authorized search of the property.
Public court filings stemming from the Mar-a-Lago search and a related legal dispute over the Justice Department's access to the 33 boxes of material seized — 13 of which contained just over 100 documents marked classified — revealed Trump was under investigation for the alleged removal or destruction of records, obstruction of justice and potentially violating a provision of the Espionage Act related to gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
In all, roughly 300 documents marked classified were recovered by federal investigators from the South Florida property after Trump left office.
The former president has denied any wrongdoing in connection with the investigation. Regarding his handling of government documents, he has claimed at times that he declassified the sensitive documents discovered at Mar-a-Lago. Trump has also asserted the materials he kept were "personal" and therefore didn't have to be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration when he left office and that they were shielded by executive privilege.
Here's a look at the events that transpired over the course of the government's attempts to get back the documents, gleaned from court filings, government records and media reports. A timeline of the legal battle that ensued over the documents can be found here.
2021
Jan. 14: Six days before the presidential transition, movers are photographed wheeling boxes out of the White House complex and placing them on nearby trucks.
Workers move boxes onto a truck on West Executive Avenue between the West Wing of the White House and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on Jan. 14, 2021.Drew Angerer / Getty Images
Jan. 18: CBS Miami reports moving trucks are observed at Mar-a-Lago.
Jan. 19: Trump tells the Archives that he has designated Mark Meadows, Pat Cipollone, Pat Philbin, Scott Gast, Steven Engel and Michael Purpura, who served in his administration either within the White House or Justice Department, as his representatives to handle matters pertaining to records from his presidency.
May 6: The Archives requests that Trump turn over missing records, and continues to ask for the documents until late December.
December: A Trump representative informs the Archives they located 12 boxes of material at Mar-a-Lago and the agency arranges for them to be securely brought back to Washington. Archives officials say they "did not visit or 'raid' the Mar-a-Lago property."
2022
Jan. 18: Fifteen boxes of records, some containing classified material, are retrieved from Mar-a-Lago by Archives representatives.
Jan. 31: The Archives says in a statement that some of Trump's presidential records it received included "paper records that had been torn up by" the former president.
"As has been reported in the press since 2018, White House records management officials during the Trump Administration recovered and taped together some of the torn-up records," the agency said. "These were turned over to the National Archives at the end of the Trump Administration, along with a number of torn-up records that had not been reconstructed by the White House."
The Archives notes that under the Presidential Record Act, all records created by presidents must be handed over to the agency at the end of their administrations.
Feb. 7: The Archives confirms that in mid-January, it arranged for the 15 boxes containing presidential records to be transported from Mar-a-Lago to the agency. It says Trump's representatives are "continuing to search" for more records that belong to the Archives and notes that under federal law, they should've been transferred from the White House at the end of the Trump administration.
Feb. 9: The Archives' Office of the Inspector General sends a referral to the Justice Department requesting it investigate Trump's handling of records. The referral notes a preliminary review of the 15 boxes taken from Mar-a-Lago indicated they contained newspapers, printed news articles, photos, notes, presidential correspondence and "a lot of classified records."
"Of most significant concern was that highly classified records were unfoldered, intermixed with other records, and otherwise unproperly [sic] identified," the referral stated.
Feb. 18: David Ferriero, then-archivist of the United States, sends a letter to House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney informing her some of the boxes retrieved by the Archives in mid-January contained items marked as classified national security information, and asked Trump's representatives to continue searching for any additional presidential records that had not been transferred to the Archives.
Ferriero tells Maloney that because the Archives identified classified information in the boxes, its staff had been in communication with the Justice Department.
April 11: The White House Counsel's Office formally transmits a request that the Archives provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes retrieved from Mar–a-Lago for its review.
Aerial view of Mar-a-Lago, the estate of former President Donald Trump, in Palm Beach, Florida.John Roca/NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images
April 12: The Archives says it communicated with Trump's "authorized representative" about the 15 boxes of seized records and told his attorney Evan Corcoran about the Justice Department's "urgency" in needing access to them. The agency also advises Trump's counsel it intended to provide the FBI with the documents the next week.
Corcoran later requests the Archives delay the disclosure to the FBI to April 29.
April 29: The Justice Department's National Security Division tells Corcoran that there are "important national security interests in the FBI and others in the intelligence community getting access to these materials."
More than 100 documents with classification markings totaling more than 700 pages were among the materials in the boxes retrieved by the Archives from Mar-a-Lago, according to the Justice Department, some of which include the "highest levels of classification, including Special Access Program materials."
The department adds that access to the documents is necessary "for purposes of our ongoing criminal investigation."
On that day, Trump's attorney requests another delay before the records are given to the FBI and says if the extension was not granted, his letter serves as a "protective assertion of executive privilege."
May 10: Acting Archivist Deborah Steidel Wall informs Corcoran in a letter that there is "no basis" for the former president to make a "protective assertion of executive privilege," and she therefore would not honor Trump's "protective" claim of privilege.
Wall also tells Corcoran that the Archives would provide the FBI access to the records taken from Mar-a-Lago as early as May 12.
May 11: The Justice Department obtains a grand jury subpoena seeking "any and all" documents bearing classification markings that are in Trump's possession at Mar-a-Lago. The subpoena sets a May 24 deadline for the requested records to be turned over and for Trump's custodian of records to appear in federal district court in Washington.
In a separate letter from Jay Bratt to Evan Corcoran, Bratt thanks him for "agreeing to accept service" of the subpoena and says Trump's custodian of records may comply with the subpoena by handing over the responsive documents to the FBI. He also notes the custodian will have to provide a sworn certification that the documents "represent all responsive records."
May 16-18: FBI agents conduct a preliminary review of the 15 boxes retrieved from Mar-a-Lago and find classified documents in 14 of them. The trove includes: 184 documents bearing classification markings, including 67 marked confidential, 92 marked secret and 25 marked top secret.
May 24: Trump's lawyer asks for an extension for complying with the subpoena, and the government ultimately pushes back the date to June 7.
May 25: Corcoran tells the Justice Department in a letter that Trump has the absolute authority to declassify documents.
June 2: Corcoran reaches out to the Justice Department and requests FBI agents retrieve the documents that are responsive to the May 11 subpoena from Mar-a-Lago.

**Graveyard** · 09-13-2024, 12:48 PM

Part 2
June 3: Three FBI agents and Bratt, the Justice Department counterintelligence chief, travel to Mar-a-Lago to retrieve the materials in response to the subpoena, and try to find a resolution to the Archives' dispute with the former president.
Trump's attorney and custodian of records are present and turn over one large envelope, "double-wrapped in tape," that contains documents. Neither asserts that Trump declassified the records or asserted claims of executive privilege, federal prosecutors said in a filing detailing the encounter.
The custodian of records for Trump's post-presidential office signs a certification attesting that a "diligent search" was conducted of boxes moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago to locate documents covered by the grand jury subpoena and that "any and all responsive documents" were provided with the certification.
Trump's lawyer says all records brought from the White House to Mar-a-Lago are stored in a single location, a storage room on the premises, and that there are no other records stored in private office space or other locations on the property. Additionally, he represents that all available boxes were searched.
FBI agents and Bratt are given access to the storage room, which contains boxes containing "clothing and personal items" of Trump and first lady Melania Trump, according to Trump's lawsuit.
But the Justice Department says government personnel were prohibited from opening or looking inside any boxes that remained in the storage room, "giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained."
The FBI goes on to review the documents contained in the envelope and finds 38 unique documents bearing classification markings, including five documents marked confidential, 16 marked secret and 17 marked top secret.
June 8: Bratt sends a letter to Trump's team warning that "Mar-a-Lago does not include a secure location authorized for the storage of classified information" and asking the room be secured.
Trump's attorneys acknowledge receipt of the letter a day later. Trump directs his staff to place a second lock on the door to the storage room, he says in his lawsuit.
June 19: Trump designates Kash Patel, a former Pentagon official, and John Solomon, a conservative commentator, as his "representatives for access to Presidential records," in a letter to the Archives.
June 24: Federal investigators issue a subpoena for security-camera footage at Mar-a-Lago, and Trump's team complies, turning over the footage to the U.S. government. (On Sept. 7, the Justice Department said the grand jury subpoena for Mar-a-Lago's security cams was issued on June 24, and not June 22, as Trump's lawsuit had stated.)
Aug. 5: The Justice Department seeks and obtains a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago from a federal magistrate judge in West Palm Beach.
The department says that prior to seeking the warrant, the FBI "uncovered multiple sources of evidence" indicating classified documents were still at Mar-a-Lago, despite the sworn certification made June 3.
Federal prosecutors say the FBI also "developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government's investigation."
The search warrant approved by the judge allows the FBI to search the "45 Office," which is Trump's office space at Mar-a-Lago, as well as all storage rooms and other rooms used or available to Trump and his staff where boxes could be stored.
Aug. 8: The Justice Department executes the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago beginning around 10 a.m. At least two of Trump's lawyers, Christina Bobb and Lindsey Halligan, are present, and Bobb signs a receipt listing the property seized by the FBI at 6:19 p.m.
A woman talks to Palm Beach police officer in front of former President Donald Trump's house at Mar-A-Lago on Aug. 8, 2022, in Palm Beach, Florida. Eva Marie Uzcategui / Getty Images
Among the items taken by agents are Trump's passports, which are later returned. The Justice Department says in its later filing that, consistent with the parameters of the search warrant, "the government seized the contents of a desk drawer that contained classified documents and governmental records commingled with other documents," which included two official passports.
"The location of the passports is relevant evidence in an investigation of unauthorized retention and mishandling of national defense information; nonetheless, the government decided to return those passports in its discretion," federal prosecutors write in the filing.
During execution of the warrant, the government seizes 33 boxes, containers or items of evidence from both the storage room and Trump's office. An investigative team reviewing the materials finds that 13 boxes or containers contain documents with classified markings, including more than 100 unique documents with classification markings. Three documents marked classified are located in desks in Trump's office, prosecutors said, and 76 more were found in the storage room.
A partially redacted photo included in the Justice Department filing shows some documents recovered from Trump's office had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. The records range from "CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET information, and certain documents included additional sensitive compartments that signify very limited distribution," the Justice Department says.
Aug. 11: Attorney General Merrick Garland delivers a statement about the search and reveals he personally approved the decision to seek the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. The Justice Department also moves to unseal the warrant amid requests from media companies, including CBS News, for the magistrate judge to also unseal the underlying affidavit laying out the reasons for the search.
Aug. 12: Trump does not oppose the release of the search warrant, and the federal magistrate judge unseals it.
The Archives also issues a statement refuting claims by Trump about former President Barack Obama's handling of records. The agency says it "assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act."

**Graveyard** · 09-13-2024, 12:49 PM

Part 3
Aug. 15: The Justice Department returns Trump's passports to his lawyers. A Trump spokesman tweets an email that confirms the FBI used a filter team to screen out evidence that was seized but not responsive to the warrant.
Aug. 18: The federal magistrate judge who approved the search warrant application holds a hearing about requests to make public the underlying affidavit and asks the Justice Department for potential redactions, to be submitted a week later.
Aug. 22: Trump files a lawsuit against the Justice Department asking for the appointment of a special master to review the seized records. The request comes more than two weeks after the initial search.
Aug. 24: The acting archivist sends a letter to staff addressing the investigation, characterizing their agency as "fiercely non-political" and refuting claims of harboring political motivations.
Aug. 25: The Justice Department submits a redacted version of the underlying search warrant affidavit. Finding the submission satisfactory, the magistrate judge orders its release a day later.
Aug. 26: The redacted affidavit is made available to the public.
Pages from the affidavit by the FBI in support of obtaining a search warrant for former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate are photographed Friday, Aug. 26, 2022. Jon Elswick / AP
Separately, in a letter to Congress, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines confirms the Justice Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence are facilitating a classification review of relevant materials seized. The intelligence office will also review risks to national security.
Sept. 5: A federal judge in Florida grants a request by Trump to name a special master, or independent third party, to review the materials recovered from Mar-a-Lago in the search one month earlier. The order from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon also calls for the Justice Department to temporarily stop using the seized materials for its investigation pending completion of the special master's review.
The Justice Department appeals the decision, and the dispute eventually winds its way to the Supreme Court, which declines to intervene. A federal appeals court later orders an end to the special master's review process, reversing Cannon's order.
Nov. 18: Garland announces that he has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to take over the Justice Department's investigation into Trump's handling of government records and efforts to thwart the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 presidential election and the events surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
2023
Following Smith's appointment, activity before federal grand juries convened in Washington ramps up. A wide scope of people were called by investigators in Smith's office to testify, including numerous Trump aides and allies, current and former Mar-a-Lago employees, White House staffers, former and current Secret Service officials and his attorneys, Evan Corcoran and Tim Parlatore.
May 19: The special counsel's office informs Trump that he is a target of a federal grand jury investigation into the alleged unlawful possession and retention of classified documents after the end of his presidency, according to a motion to seal the indictment filed by the Justice Department.
June 5: Three of Trump's lawyers meet with Smith and other officials at the Justice Department and discuss concerns about prosecutors' efforts in the inquiry.
June 8: Trump is indicted by the Justice Department on charges stemming from the investigation into his handling of government documents.
The exact nature of the charges, the first to arise from Smith's investigations, is not immediately clear. But three sources familiar with the case say the former president has been charged in a multi-count indictment involving the retention of national defense information, conspiracy and obstruction.
He is scheduled to appear in federal court in Miami on Tuesday, June 13, for his arraignment.
June 9: The 38-count indictment against Tump and Nauta is unsealed and details the federal laws the Justice Department argues they violated.
The indictment lists 37 counts in all against Trump:

31 counts of willful retention of classified documents
1 count of conspiracy to obstruct justice
1 count of withholding a document or record
1 count of corruptly concealing a document or record
1 count of concealing a document in a federal investigation
1 count of scheme to conceal
1 count of making false statements and representations

Smith also delivers a short statement about the case against Trump. Smith pledges a "speedy trial."
"We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone," he says. "Applying those laws, collecting facts, that's what determines the outcome of the investigation."

**Graveyard** · 09-13-2024, 03:14 PM

DNC not inviting Teamsters is an ‘insult’ to the union members: Sean O’Brien

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment