User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:51:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Ugh I spent way too much time on this last time, I'm not going to do it again. Go read this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/US-judge-receptive-to-Trump-documents-claims-in-warning-sign-for-prosecutors/5-2716722/? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By R0N: Let’s get to the NARA issue. I believe it will have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication because the only ruling that could be us as precident at this time is that the ex POTUS gets to choose what is his and what is not his. This is nonsense, there are multiple court rulings that make it very clear that the president doesn't just get to unilaterally choose what is personal. The law defines it and he is required to make his argument for how it complies with the law and the courts can judge whether they agree with him or not and he has to abide by their ruling. Citations supporting assertion? Ugh I spent way too much time on this last time, I'm not going to do it again. Go read this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/US-judge-receptive-to-Trump-documents-claims-in-warning-sign-for-prosecutors/5-2716722/? Maybe you should spend some time with the DC Grand jury indictment. News flash, Jack Smith's indictment is un redacted. |
|
|
|
MS, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:00:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: I don’t believe there is a political solution to our problem. It’s going to take pain and suffering. I am not sure anyone is prepared for pain and suffering. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: Originally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: Everything the president does relies on the bureacracy to comply. Granted, he could fire them and even that has limitations with rules and regs but this is Washington DC. Who would fill the jobs that he vacated? The same kind of people is the best you could hope for in DC. The solution is complicated and will take YEARS beyond Trump to accomplish. I don’t believe there is a political solution to our problem. It’s going to take pain and suffering. I am not sure anyone is prepared for pain and suffering. Imagine where we would be if Hillary followed up after Obama is all I can say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:12:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Advance]
[#3]
Reading the usual N_T'r thread sliding and it dawned on me... All this does is sharpen our ability to reason, debate and fight these narratives in the spaces outside of ARFCOM. Although somewhat painful, we learn the patterns, talking points, and concerted strategies of the left. Since our side is proven correct over 90% of the time, we also get constant reminders of past events that just reinforce our resolve in dealing with the topic at hand.
Makes it easier to understand how the left comes off as so dumb when you consider how gatekept places like DU are. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:14:50 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: Imagine where we would be if Hillary followed up after Obama is all I can say. I can’t even. Hillary would have been a nightmare. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:18:06 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Ugh I spent way too much time on this last time, I'm not going to do it again. Go read this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/US-judge-receptive-to-Trump-documents-claims-in-warning-sign-for-prosecutors/5-2716722/? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By R0N: Let’s get to the NARA issue. I believe it will have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication because the only ruling that could be us as precident at this time is that the ex POTUS gets to choose what is his and what is not his. This is nonsense, there are multiple court rulings that make it very clear that the president doesn't just get to unilaterally choose what is personal. The law defines it and he is required to make his argument for how it complies with the law and the courts can judge whether they agree with him or not and he has to abide by their ruling. Citations supporting assertion? Ugh I spent way too much time on this last time, I'm not going to do it again. Go read this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/US-judge-receptive-to-Trump-documents-claims-in-warning-sign-for-prosecutors/5-2716722/? You make assertions, you know where to look for them again. A link to a 37 page thread? GTFO. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:19:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: I don’t believe there is a political solution to our problem. It’s going to take pain and suffering. I am not sure anyone is prepared for pain and suffering. I can actually respect that it’s intellectually honest to say Trump is not solution and the only solution is go full on accelerationist and collapse the system. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:22:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3one5]
[#7]
This thread has made it incredibly easy to identify and ignore the DU plants on the site.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:32:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: Okay, and there is no penalty in the presidential records act. The burden of proof is on the government that Trump stole classified docs. Trump's defense is he declassified everything - he did it by executive order and by waving his hand and saying "this is declassified". Kash Patel has stated as much. And now we know the DOJ and NARA colluded in order to concoct a case in order to charge Trump. It was rumored in media reports there was some kind of coordination going on behind the scenes that the DOJ wanted the Russian collusion docs back. They used NARA to file a complaint that Trump had classified docs. Then they used that to get the warrant to raid MAL and they took everything. Now we know that was true. I think we are looking at a dismissal. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: Originally Posted By CMiller: This is nonsense, there are multiple court rulings that make it very clear that the president doesn't just get to unilaterally choose what is personal. The law defines it and he is required to make his argument for how it complies with the law and the courts can judge whether they agree with him or not and he has to abide by their ruling. Okay, and there is no penalty in the presidential records act. The burden of proof is on the government that Trump stole classified docs. Trump's defense is he declassified everything - he did it by executive order and by waving his hand and saying "this is declassified". Kash Patel has stated as much. And now we know the DOJ and NARA colluded in order to concoct a case in order to charge Trump. It was rumored in media reports there was some kind of coordination going on behind the scenes that the DOJ wanted the Russian collusion docs back. They used NARA to file a complaint that Trump had classified docs. Then they used that to get the warrant to raid MAL and they took everything. Now we know that was true. I think we are looking at a dismissal. Where does he say that he said it out loud, and where is Patel's quote? Trump said he said it in his mind. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:32:38 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GutWrench: I don’t believe there is a political solution to our problem. It’s going to take pain and suffering. I am not sure anyone is prepared for pain and suffering.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:34:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: You make assertions, you know where to look for them again. A link to a 37 page thread? GTFO. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By R0N: Let’s get to the NARA issue. I believe it will have to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication because the only ruling that could be us as precident at this time is that the ex POTUS gets to choose what is his and what is not his. This is nonsense, there are multiple court rulings that make it very clear that the president doesn't just get to unilaterally choose what is personal. The law defines it and he is required to make his argument for how it complies with the law and the courts can judge whether they agree with him or not and he has to abide by their ruling. Citations supporting assertion? Ugh I spent way too much time on this last time, I'm not going to do it again. Go read this thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/US-judge-receptive-to-Trump-documents-claims-in-warning-sign-for-prosecutors/5-2716722/? You make assertions, you know where to look for them again. A link to a 37 page thread? GTFO. Yeah, like you would actually read links if I went and found them again... what a convenient response. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:34:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XxbatraiderxX: Everything the president does relies on the bureacracy to comply. Granted, he could fire them and even that has limitations with rules and regs but this is Washington DC. Who would fill the jobs that he vacated? The same kind of people is the best you could hope for in DC. The solution is complicated and will take YEARS beyond Trump to accomplish. You could LITERALLY pick random busloads of kids going to grade school and get better results. I know you are just here to troll, but your must learn to be better at it, for all of our sake. Jeeze. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:40:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: There you go again... putting words in people's mouths so that you can argue those words against them. I will try and explain it to you but, I cannot understand it for you. All Trump's lawyers have been seeking delays so as to forestall the prosecutions. To accomplish this they have been making any appeals they can, hoping one will stick and an appellate/supreme court will agree to hear hear their appeals, causing the delay of an actual trial. The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision could be as important as the outcome... if the appeal results in a delay that extends beyond the election, they have succeeded in their goal. Pointing out that trumps lawyers were celebrating their victory in gaining that procedural delay based upon their strategy's success, is axiomatic and again, neither "biased" nor political. Furthermore, discussing the unlikely possibility that trump's lawyers will prevail is also neither political nor "biased." Except for untutored laymen (like you), few lawyers or constitutional scholars actually believe this nation bestows absolute criminal immunity upon a president. Lower courts have all rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on the appeals court. Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. Even Thomas pointed to the text of the Constitution and how it was understood by the people who ratified it saying: “The text of the Constitution … does not afford the President absolute immunity” It may just be that the SC is taking the case to clarify under which limited circumstances presidents can enjoy immunity from prosecution. In any event, I don't understand why it is you are considered clever here... I don't see it myself. But again, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You read a story citing an anonymous source that says something in a liberal rag that has a known bias against Trump and all things conservative. Most people would dismiss that story because of these glaring issues. You, on the other hand, do not. Instead, you cite it as “confirmation” of your beliefs. What do they call that? There you go again... putting words in people's mouths so that you can argue those words against them. I will try and explain it to you but, I cannot understand it for you. All Trump's lawyers have been seeking delays so as to forestall the prosecutions. To accomplish this they have been making any appeals they can, hoping one will stick and an appellate/supreme court will agree to hear hear their appeals, causing the delay of an actual trial. The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision could be as important as the outcome... if the appeal results in a delay that extends beyond the election, they have succeeded in their goal. Pointing out that trumps lawyers were celebrating their victory in gaining that procedural delay based upon their strategy's success, is axiomatic and again, neither "biased" nor political. Furthermore, discussing the unlikely possibility that trump's lawyers will prevail is also neither political nor "biased." Except for untutored laymen (like you), few lawyers or constitutional scholars actually believe this nation bestows absolute criminal immunity upon a president. Lower courts have all rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on the appeals court. Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. Even Thomas pointed to the text of the Constitution and how it was understood by the people who ratified it saying: “The text of the Constitution … does not afford the President absolute immunity” It may just be that the SC is taking the case to clarify under which limited circumstances presidents can enjoy immunity from prosecution. In any event, I don't understand why it is you are considered clever here... I don't see it myself. But again, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Hey maybe you're right and I just don't grasp your point. Remind us again why you are citing anonymous sources? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:50:12 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Wow a political appointee of the current administration, they probably know less about the subject than you do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:52:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: CMiller]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Knowing less than me would be difficult. That's why I asked the -- still unanswered -- question "If the presidency automatically grants a Q clearance, then why wasn't it granted until February 9, 2017? Shouldn't it have been granted on January 20, 2017?" Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Originally Posted By R0N: Wow a political appointee of the current administration, they probably know less about the subject than you do. My guess would be typical bureaucratic administrative lethargy. I assume it would be in effect once he is sworn in, but maybe they didn't get around to doing the paperwork for a couple weeks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:53:15 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Knowing less than me would be difficult. That's why I asked the -- still unanswered -- question "If the presidency automatically grants a Q clearance, then why wasn't it granted until February 9, 2017? Shouldn't it have been granted on January 20, 2017?" More than likely because there’s a lot of bureaucrats who believe they have to go through the process even if it’s a waste of time. Because if the process isn’t followed then there’s no need for their job. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:00:47 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: Reading the usual N_T'r thread sliding and it dawned on me... All this does is sharpen our ability to reason, debate and fight these narratives in the spaces outside of ARFCOM. Although somewhat painful, we learn the patterns, talking points, and concerted strategies of the left. Since our side is proven correct over 90% of the time, we also get constant reminders of past events that just reinforce our resolve in dealing with the topic at hand. Makes it easier to understand how the left comes off as so dumb when you consider how gatekept places like DU are. I agree. I am thankful to interact with those of differing viewpoints. The problem is that people forget or never hear the conclusion. That is, there was no Trump/Russia conspiracy, the FISA warrants were abused, the Colorado Court really did get smacked down in a 9-0 decision, yet people continue to believe the opposite because once the story leaves the front page they never follow the story and their news sources don't explain what they got wrong. So, here we are. The oral arguments were interesting today. We'll see where the Supremes go with this, but there may be some immunity given to Mr. Trump. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:48:10 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: More than likely because there’s a lot of bureaucrats who believe they have to go through the process even if it’s a waste of time. Because if the process isn’t followed then there’s no need for their job. Then again it took two years after his clearance expired to update the database. Which implies really bad things about the DOE's handling of clearances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:54:40 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Allegedly the process is "if President then clearance”. Even the DMV could figure out within a week whether or not Trump is President. Then again it took two years after his clearance expired to update the database. Which implies really bad things about the DOE's handling of clearances. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Originally Posted By R0N: More than likely because there’s a lot of bureaucrats who believe they have to go through the process even if it’s a waste of time. Because if the process isn’t followed then there’s no need for their job. Then again it took two years after his clearance expired to update the database. Which implies really bad things about the DOE's handling of clearances. DOE is probably the worst at, I have an employee with a TS equivalence from DOE and I am still waiting almost a year for it to transfer to DoD. But It’s not just DOE, it’s Gov wide problem though. The way I tell people, DoD is probably the best run of the Gov Department, and DoD sucks real bad. Think of it like a fortune 100 company, but no one can be fired and they don’t have to answer to their stock holders. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 2:58:21 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Allegedly the process is "if President then clearance”. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Allegedly the process is "if President then clearance”. The nominees of the major parties start receiving intelligence briefings before the election. He is commander in chief of all military forces the second he's done with the oath. That is the process. Then again it took two years after his clearance expired to update the database. Which implies really bad things about the DOE's handling of clearances. The federal government's handling of just about anything related to record keeping and process is sclerotic and terrible. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 3:36:14 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By John_Wayne777: The nominees of the major parties start receiving intelligence briefings before the election. He is commander in chief of all military forces the second he's done with the oath. That is the process. The federal government's handling of just about anything related to record keeping and process is sclerotic and terrible. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By John_Wayne777: Originally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Allegedly the process is "if President then clearance”. The nominees of the major parties start receiving intelligence briefings before the election. He is commander in chief of all military forces the second he's done with the oath. That is the process. Then again it took two years after his clearance expired to update the database. Which implies really bad things about the DOE's handling of clearances. The federal government's handling of just about anything related to record keeping and process is sclerotic and terrible. The nominees don't receive briefings because they have a security clearance. They receive briefings because the current president authorizes it. He has complete discretion, if he wants to (and he might), Biden can deny Trump all briefings until and unless he wins the election. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:51:51 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: The nominees don't receive briefings because they have a security clearance. They receive briefings because the current president authorizes it. He has complete discretion, if he wants to (and he might), Biden can deny Trump all briefings until and unless he wins the election. Yup, he can even DEclassify stuff...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:02:41 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Hey maybe you're right and I just don't grasp your point. You’re making progress and that’s a good start. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:10:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: Reading the usual N_T'r thread sliding and it dawned on me... All this does is sharpen our ability to reason, debate and fight these narratives in the spaces outside of ARFCOM. Although somewhat painful, we learn the patterns, talking points, and concerted strategies of the left. Since our side is proven correct over 90% of the time, we also get constant reminders of past events that just reinforce our resolve in dealing with the topic at hand. Makes it easier to understand how the left comes off as so dumb when you consider how gatekept places like DU are. Why do you think I engage the non-retarded one? lol |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:16:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mcculver5: I agree. I am thankful to interact with those of differing viewpoints. The problem is that people forget or never hear the conclusion. That is, there was no Trump/Russia conspiracy, the FISA warrants were abused, the Colorado Court really did get smacked down in a 9-0 decision, yet people continue to believe the opposite because once the story leaves the front page they never follow the story and their news sources don't explain what they got wrong. So, here we are. The oral arguments were interesting today. We'll see where the Supremes go with this, but there may be some immunity given to Mr. Trump. I think clarification on immunity is warranted, whether they do that or just kick it back to the lower courts remains to be seen… |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 6:41:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Advance: Reading the usual N_T'r thread sliding and it dawned on me... All this does is sharpen our ability to reason, debate and fight these narratives in the spaces outside of ARFCOM. Although somewhat painful, we learn the patterns, talking points, and concerted strategies of the left. Since our side is proven correct over 90% of the time, we also get constant reminders of past events that just reinforce our resolve in dealing with the topic at hand. Makes it easier to understand how the left comes off as so dumb when you consider how gatekept places like DU are. I have advocated that here for years when people bring up how they put these posters on 'ignore'. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:15:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Where does he say that he said it out loud, and where is Patel's quote? Trump said he said it in his mind. For one, there is the memo where he ordered anything related to the crossfire hurricane investigation declassified.I've linked that in many threads. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-declassification-certain-materials-related-fbis-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/ Media report where they quote Trump saying everything taken to MAL was declassified  Trump Says He Declassified Mar-A-Lago Documents Found By FBI |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:24:14 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: My guess would be typical bureaucratic administrative lethargy. I assume it would be in effect once he is sworn in, but maybe they didn't get around to doing the paperwork for a couple weeks. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Originally Posted By R0N: Wow a political appointee of the current administration, they probably know less about the subject than you do. My guess would be typical bureaucratic administrative lethargy. I assume it would be in effect once he is sworn in, but maybe they didn't get around to doing the paperwork for a couple weeks.  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 7:41:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Where does he say that he said it out loud, and where is Patel's quote? Trump said he said it in his mind. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Dumak: Originally Posted By CMiller: This is nonsense, there are multiple court rulings that make it very clear that the president doesn't just get to unilaterally choose what is personal. The law defines it and he is required to make his argument for how it complies with the law and the courts can judge whether they agree with him or not and he has to abide by their ruling. Okay, and there is no penalty in the presidential records act. The burden of proof is on the government that Trump stole classified docs. Trump's defense is he declassified everything - he did it by executive order and by waving his hand and saying "this is declassified". Kash Patel has stated as much. And now we know the DOJ and NARA colluded in order to concoct a case in order to charge Trump. It was rumored in media reports there was some kind of coordination going on behind the scenes that the DOJ wanted the Russian collusion docs back. They used NARA to file a complaint that Trump had classified docs. Then they used that to get the warrant to raid MAL and they took everything. Now we know that was true. I think we are looking at a dismissal. Where does he say that he said it out loud, and where is Patel's quote? Trump said he said it in his mind. Where does it say that he has to say it out loud? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:03:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By John_Wayne777: The nominees of the major parties start receiving intelligence briefings before the election. He is commander in chief of all military forces the second he's done with the oath. That is the process. The federal government's handling of just about anything related to record keeping and process is sclerotic and terrible. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By John_Wayne777: Originally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Allegedly the process is "if President then clearance”. The nominees of the major parties start receiving intelligence briefings before the election. He is commander in chief of all military forces the second he's done with the oath. That is the process. Then again it took two years after his clearance expired to update the database. Which implies really bad things about the DOE's handling of clearances. The federal government's handling of just about anything related to record keeping and process is sclerotic and terrible. During the Transition, the incoming Transition Team (not necessarily part of the new admin) has access to EVERYTHING. Covert, clandestine, aliens, SAPs…all of it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:03:54 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: You’re making progress and that’s a good start. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Hey maybe you're right and I just don't grasp your point. You’re making progress and that’s a good start. So why did you cite an anonymous source? |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:18:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fadedsun: That will discourage enough people to cost him the election. Great job republicans for putting forth a candidate who was unelectable. And who would be? Haley? Christ Christie? Shit, they put for "electable" candidates in the past, John McCain, Mitt Romney... Now those are some awesome, electable, strongly right wing folks right there... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:26:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: For one, there is the memo where he ordered anything related to the crossfire hurricane investigation declassified.I've linked that in many threads. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-declassification-certain-materials-related-fbis-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/ Media report where they quote Trump saying everything taken to MAL was declassified  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkYVIxMv-7YQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dumak: Originally Posted By CMiller: Where does he say that he said it out loud, and where is Patel's quote? Trump said he said it in his mind. For one, there is the memo where he ordered anything related to the crossfire hurricane investigation declassified.I've linked that in many threads. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-declassification-certain-materials-related-fbis-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/ Media report where they quote Trump saying everything taken to MAL was declassified https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkYVIxMv-7YThe executive order is obviously specific, there is nothing blanket about it. Yes, Trump has said many times he declassified all the stuff he took. But he said he did it in his mind. I've never seen that he claims he told anybody about it at the time. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:34:11 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Knowing less than me would be difficult. That's why I asked the -- still unanswered -- question "If the presidency automatically grants a Q clearance, then why wasn't it granted until February 9, 2017? Shouldn't it have been granted on January 20, 2017?" POTUS has automatic clearance. I note a lot of confusion about the Constitutional status of POTUS. Including with those in government. Vindman stating that Trump didn't follow the "interagency consensus", as if POTUS was supposed to follow their orders. People in government think too much of themselves. The root of our problem is the permanent bureaucracy. The same people trying to take Trump down. The same people who use classified documents as both a weapon, and a means of shielding their own misbehavior. Look at all the redactions made to hide their wrongdoing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:38:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: R0N]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: I note a lot of confusion about the Constitutional status of POTUS. Including with those in government. Vindman stating that Trump didn't follow the "interagency consensus", as if POTUS was supposed to follow their orders. People in government think too much of themselves. The root of our problem is the permanent bureaucracy. The same people trying to take SPOT ON I explained to my Liberal Aunt when she tried to give me his book, I don’t know what world Vindman lived in but LtCol may suggest and write taking point but in the end it’s the principle’s decision, not the staff officer’s. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:49:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: POTUS has automatic clearance. I note a lot of confusion about the Constitutional status of POTUS. Including with those in government. Vindman stating that Trump didn't follow the "interagency consensus", as if POTUS was supposed to follow their orders. People in government think too much of themselves. The root of our problem is the permanent bureaucracy. The same people trying to take Trump down. The same people who use classified documents as both a weapon, and a means of shielding their own misbehavior. Look at all the redactions made to hide their wrongdoing. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Originally Posted By Francisco_dAnconia: Knowing less than me would be difficult. That's why I asked the -- still unanswered -- question "If the presidency automatically grants a Q clearance, then why wasn't it granted until February 9, 2017? Shouldn't it have been granted on January 20, 2017?" POTUS has automatic clearance. I note a lot of confusion about the Constitutional status of POTUS. Including with those in government. Vindman stating that Trump didn't follow the "interagency consensus", as if POTUS was supposed to follow their orders. People in government think too much of themselves. The root of our problem is the permanent bureaucracy. The same people trying to take Trump down. The same people who use classified documents as both a weapon, and a means of shielding their own misbehavior. Look at all the redactions made to hide their wrongdoing. 100% spot on |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:57:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AdLucem]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: So why did you cite an anonymous source? You sound silly, perhaps you really did hit your head too hard. Show us all where I “cited” an “anonymous source?”  Stick to your day job…. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:58:46 PM EDT
[#37]
GD liberals: but, but, but, he's been charged THIS MANY times
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:15:12 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: You sound silly, perhaps you really did hit your head too hard. Show us all where I “cited” an “anonymous source?” https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/15577/275230698_10166198861815010_355604193659-3178905.jpg Stick to your day job…. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: So why did you cite an anonymous source? You sound silly, perhaps you really did hit your head too hard. Show us all where I “cited” an “anonymous source?” https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/15577/275230698_10166198861815010_355604193659-3178905.jpg Stick to your day job…. Here you go: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Just blather... and btw word is trump's legal team acknowledges their immunity argument has little chance of success, but claim victory is the resulting procedural delay in the prosecution of the criminal case. What’s your source? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:17:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AdLucem]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Here you go: What’s your source? Nope.... let's try again. Show us all where I “cited” an “anonymous source.” |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:18:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Nope.... let's try again. Show us all where I “cited” an “anonymous source.” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Here you go: What’s your source? Nope.... let's try again. Show us all where I “cited” an “anonymous source.” I literally just posted you citing an anonymous source. “Word is…” From whom, exactly? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:22:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: I literally just posted you citing an anonymous source. “Word is…” From whom, exactly? Really... now go to the dictionary and understand what you are alleging and then read what I wrote. waitingpatiently.gif |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:26:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Really... now go to the dictionary and understand what you are alleging and then read what I wrote. waitingpatiently.gif Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I literally just posted you citing an anonymous source. “Word is…” From whom, exactly? Really... now go to the dictionary and understand what you are alleging and then read what I wrote. waitingpatiently.gif You cited, as a source of information, an unnamed person saying something. Do they have a name, or are they “anonymous”?  Name the source, and you’ll be correct. If not, then it’s either “anonymous” or a lie. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:28:04 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You cited, as a source of information, an unnamed person saying something. Do they have a name, or are they “anonymous”? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/5DB5E672-7F4F-4E9D-BDA2-71AEC0C5AD65-3197963.jpg OK, Let's play... Where is it you believe I obtained this information? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:29:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: OK, Let's play... Where is it you believe I obtained this information? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You cited, as a source of information, an unnamed person saying something. Do they have a name, or are they “anonymous”? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/5DB5E672-7F4F-4E9D-BDA2-71AEC0C5AD65-3197963.jpg OK, Let's play... Where is it you believe I obtained this information? From your ass, or from an article citing an anonymous source. You seem hesitant to cite your source. I assume it demonstrates your bias, and your embarrassed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:32:18 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: From your ass, or from an article citing an anonymous source. Now, now. You are floundering... let me help you. "word is" used to refer to something that has been reported but not officially stated: (the) word is (that) The word is (that) more hostages will be released over the next few weeks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:33:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Now, now. You are floundering... let me help you. "word is" used to refer to something that has been reported but not officially stated: (the) word is (that) The word is (that) more hostages will be released over the next few weeks. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: From your ass, or from an article citing an anonymous source. Now, now. You are floundering... let me help you. "word is" used to refer to something that has been reported but not officially stated: (the) word is (that) The word is (that) more hostages will be released over the next few weeks. You dance and squirm, but never answer. Cite your source. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:33:38 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:34:35 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Now, now. You are floundering... let me help you. "word is" used to refer to something that has been reported but not officially stated: (the) word is (that) The word is (that) more hostages will be released over the next few weeks. Do you feel like you’re holding your own in this discussion |
|
|
|
IA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:35:31 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GRENDEL87: And...nothing will happen. This ^^ kwg |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 9:39:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You dance and squirm, but never answer. Cite your source. "Dance and squirm" lol temper, temper you are getting emotional.. you first... where is it you believe I heard this information? |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
