• The KillerFrogs

The Harris/Biden Administration: Coming Together to Build Back Better

geezer

Don't know what you're saying? Don't say it.
The economy is the greatest ever!

Target’s Having a Much Harder Time Than Walmart


"On Wednesday, Target laid bare the damage from marking down its mountain of inventory, with an almost 90% slump in second-quarter profits. That’s in stark contrast to Walmart’s forecast on Tuesday that earnings wouldn’t fall as much as expected when it warned on profit last month. Target shares declined as much as 5% in early trading."

Why the difference between the two companies?

One explanation is that Walmart generated about half of its sales from food in 2021, while the figure for Target was just 20%. That means Target is much more exposed to Americans ditching discretionary purchases, such as clothing, home furnishings and electronics, because they have to spend more on food, fuel and other things they need. It didn’t help that the company stocked up on these categories, anticipating the frenetic pace of pandemic buying would continue."

Best Buy trims jobs after it cuts sales and profit outlook

"Best Buy, the nation’s largest consumer electronics chain, is trimming jobs in an effort to adjust to new changes in consumer behavior as the virus wanes."

"The job cuts come after Best Buy reduced its annual sales and profit forecast late last month, citing surging inflation that has dampened consumer spending on gadgets. The Minneapolis-based company echoed Walmart, which a few days before cut its profit outlook. The nation’s largest retailer said that higher prices on basic necessities are forcing shoppers to cut back on discretionary items ."
 

CardFrog

Active Member
and now we will dump billions of dollars in addition to what has been spent by Biden et al that will only serve to create more pressure on the Fed to tackle inflation by raising rates and likely causing a recession, I have no idea how the Dems think this is going to help them in November, its insanity and they know it. I have come to detest politicians on both sides that have made their entire careers scheissing with the American taxpayer.
 
I was going to post this last night.

It would be hilarious if Trump skates on these charges due to a legal precedent set by a case in which Hillary's husband won in his attempts to keep documents (in this case audio tapes) from is days in the WH.

It's even funnier in that Bush (the left's new plaything because he's a Never Trumper) and Obama also may have aided in Trump's cause by signing executive orders — which remain in force to this day — declaring that presidents have sweeping authority to declassify secrets and do not have to follow the mandatory declassification procedures all other government officials do.

Key points from the case not already mentioned:
  • There is no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.
  • A president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
  • They concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision (regarding whether the documents are personal property) lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted.
 

AroundWorldFrog

Full Member
I was going to post this last night.

It would be hilarious if Trump skates on these charges due to a legal precedent set by a case in which Hillary's husband won in his attempts to keep documents (in this case audio tapes) from is days in the WH.

It's even funnier in that Bush (the left's new plaything because he's a Never Trumper) and Obama also may have aided in Trump's cause by signing executive orders — which remain in force to this day — declaring that presidents have sweeping authority to declassify secrets and do not have to follow the mandatory declassification procedures all other government officials do.

Key points from the case not already mentioned:
  • There is no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.
  • A president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
  • They concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision (regarding whether the documents are personal property) lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted.
Highly ironic if it ended up going to SCOTUS.
 

Bob Sugar

Active Member
But, but....he stole nuclear secrets and sold them to the Russians, Iranians, Saudis and Chinese!
Because he’s poor and needs the money and is going through an audit and is being investigated at every turn, so he totally can hide the additional income.
Always Sunny Reaction GIF


Guess he should have earmarked “10 percent to the Big Guy to be held by H” to avoid scrutiny.
 

geezer

Don't know what you're saying? Don't say it.
I was going to post this last night.

It would be hilarious if Trump skates on these charges due to a legal precedent set by a case in which Hillary's husband won in his attempts to keep documents (in this case audio tapes) from is days in the WH.

It's even funnier in that Bush (the left's new plaything because he's a Never Trumper) and Obama also may have aided in Trump's cause by signing executive orders — which remain in force to this day — declaring that presidents have sweeping authority to declassify secrets and do not have to follow the mandatory declassification procedures all other government officials do.

Key points from the case not already mentioned:
  • There is no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.
  • A president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.
  • They concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision (regarding whether the documents are personal property) lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted.

Clinton was president from Jan 20, 1993 until Jan 20, 2001. His records were governed by the Presidential Records Act of 1978 (which addressed issues raised by Nixon's conduct in office.)

Please note that the Presidential Records Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22) was revised by the 111th Congress (2009-2010). More changes were made in 2014.

Presidential and Federal Records Acts Amendments of 2014

The implementing procedures used by the National Archives were revised as changes to the PRA were made by Congress.

For your reading pleasure: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46129/4
 

TxFrog1999

The Man Behind The Curtain
Yep, and the FBI has an entire week to figure out which parts to redact. And if the affidavit is that extensive to require an entire week to figure out which parts are detrimental to national security, then the excuse given by the FBI and DOJ for this raid is bunk.
 
Top