@skutfarcus :
So you think it could be that her staff are sabotaging her, or is it truly sheer incompetence? I find either rationale possible, and potentially comforting.

@skutfarcus :
A Big "OOPS" there on her part, LOL.
The DJT administration will never admit to any successes on previous Presidents, no matter what party.
My opinion and mine alone and not my employer's.

@CornelliusRex : Say what!?!

@CornelliusRex : It is DEFINITELY an incompetence issue from top to bottom in this current administration.

@CornelliusRex :
It is not really sabotaging as such and it is not all coincidence either. Though, both of those things are involved in it to some degree. Could be if they relied on sabotage alone they would not known how to do it. LOL. If that makes any sense at all. First of all there was a major brain drain away from DOJ after the election totaling in all about a collective 200 plus years plus experience, at a minimum. That includes lawyers, support personnel, etc. etc. combined. Add that to the fact that never before have we had a president get so involved in all the inner workings at DOJ, Not even Watergate era was this bad. Add the ongoing high and mid level vacancies that remain unfilled at DOJ, how can anything go right is the real question. What we are not hearing about is that the rate of convictions is also down overall at DOJ. There have been some cases around the country that even defense lawyers have been shocked when the verdict came back not guilty for their clients. General consensus is that DOJ is now very, very very weak in closing arguments and some cross examinations of the witnesses put on the stand by the defense. DOJ has tried to call back some of their best retired prosecutors but no takers. I know one of them. Some of them are now criminal defense lawyers and beating DOJ at their own game.

"Anchor Light Publications - Substack
"If you don't have time to read the entire 255 page transcript of Jack Smith's Testimony, here's a summary:
1. Purpose and Scope of Testimony
Jack Smith appeared under subpoena to explain the process, independence, and legal basis for the Special Counsel investigations involving Donald Trump. He consistently framed his role as narrow, apolitical, and evidence-driven, resisting efforts to recast the testimony as political theater.
2. Independence from the White House and DOJ Leadership
Smith repeatedly emphasized:
No coordination with the White House
No political direction from President Biden
Full independence in charging decisions
When pressed directly on whether politics influenced his work, Smith's answer was blunt and unembellished: "No."
3. Charging Decisions and Legal Standards
Smith stressed that:
Charges were based on documentary evidence and firsthand witness testimony
The same standards would apply to any defendant
Prosecutorial discretion was exercised conservatively
He stated plainly that his office would not have proceeded without "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in both cases.
4. Classified Documents Case
On the classified documents matter, Smith underscored that:
The case focused on willful retention and obstruction, not accidental possession
Subpoena noncompliance, false statements, and document movement were central
Claims of declassification authority were not legally dispositive
The emphasis throughout was conduct, not status.
5. January 6 and Election Interference Case
Regarding election interference, Smith emphasized:
The distinction between protected speech and criminal action
Intent and coordination as key elements
Use of fraudulent mechanisms to obstruct lawful government functions
He rejected the idea that the case relied on dramatic but weak evidence, noting that some widely cited testimony amounted to "secondhand hearsay," and was not the backbone of the prosecution.
6. Response to Allegations of Bias or Weaponization
Smith categorically denied:
Selective prosecution
Retaliatory motives
Any deviation from DOJ precedent
He stated that if presented with the same facts involving any former president, "regardless of whether the president was a Republican or Democrat," the charging decision would be the same.
7. Limits of Disclosure
Smith declined to answer questions that:
Implicated ongoing litigation strategy
Risked prejudicing trials
Violated grand jury secrecy
These refusals were framed as legal obligations rather than evasiveness.
8. Overall Tone and Posture
Highly disciplined and procedural
Minimal editorializing
Repeated effort to keep answers within legal boundaries
At one point, Smith summarized the core logic of the prosecutions succinctly: while the decision to charge was his, the basis for the charges rested "entirely with President Trump and his actions."
9. Why This Matters Politically
While the testimony was legally restrained, its political significance is substantial. Authoritarian systems do not typically announce themselves through coups; they advance by delegitimizing accountability mechanisms, reframing lawful oversight as persecution, and conditioning the public to view enforcement of law as partisan aggression.
Smith's testimony directly challenged that trajectory.
By refusing to engage in political framing and by repeatedly grounding his answers in evidence, standards, and procedure, he implicitly defended a core democratic principle: that power does not place an individual above the law.
At the same time, the very need for this testimony highlights how far the erosion has progressed. In a healthy democracy, prosecutors do not need to explain that they are not political actors. The normalization of that suspicion is itself a marker of democratic decay. The committee hearing was less about uncovering misconduct than about testing whether institutional independence could still survive sustained political pressure.
Bottom Line
The testimony was defensive but methodical. Smith's throughline was clear: this was not a political exercise, but a legal one. And in a moment of accelerating authoritarian drift, the insistence that law remain boring, procedural, and indifferent to power may be one of the last meaningful lines of defense."

@skutfarcus :
I thought it was Biden's fault.

I don't care what "doctor ronny" says. Trump has dementia.

IYKYKCanada Quietly Ends a Border Privilege Americans Took for Granted
For decades, thousands of Americans crossed into Canada's remote wilderness without border officers, checkpoints, or scrutiny - a rare trust-based system that made the northern border feel almost invisible. That era is now ending. Ottawa has confirmed the Remote Area Border Crossing (RABC) program will be terminated in September 2026, forcing all travelers to report at staffed ports of entry. Officially, it's about security and modernization. Politically, it signals a deeper shift in how Canada views border trust amid rising U.S. rhetoric. The burden of adjustment will fall largely on Americans - and the implications stretch far beyond tourism.

@skutfarcus : That does a disservice to people who are actually diagnosed with dementia. This is more and it is sociopathic.

@skutfarcus : Naw dude, some people are just good test takers and need to show off their skill set.

Video Title: chris wallace trump interview "I took the [cognitive] test too, when I heard you passed it.