User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:05:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Yeah, the authority of a president on such things has never been in doubt. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: So, then you agree 100% that a sitting President CAN declassify and share anything he wants, and that there is no higher authority that can be appealed to stop him. Yeah, the authority of a president on such things has never been in doubt. Well, then that's that. Stop posting. The thread is finished. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:10:43 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Well, then that's that. Stop posting. The thread is finished. Except for the thousandth time, the charges aren’t about mishandling classified information. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:13:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Except for the thousandth time, the charges aren’t about mishandling classified information. The charges are for not returning things, the only previous case on the subject had the ruling that POTUS got to decide what were his and what were not. Until that is overturned by SCOTUS precedent is on Mr Trump’s side. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:13:51 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: But along with that are assumptions that the President would always act in good faith or in the best national security interests of the United States. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:17:36 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: The charges are for not returning things, the only previous case on the subject had the ruling that POTUS got to decide what were his and what were not. Until that is overturned by SCOTUS precedent is on Mr Trump’s side. If not “not returning things when told to”, how would you define the crime of “willful retention of national defense information” under the statue he was charged with? |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:21:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Yeah, the authority of a president on such things has never been in doubt. But along with that are assumptions that the President would always act in good faith or in the best national security interests of the United States. The only check and balance on a president is the power of impeachment, and I could come up with plenty of hypotheticals regarding classification issues which should trigger impeachment. I’m sure you could too. Trump always acted in the best interest of national security. Same can't be said of Biden, Obama, Clinton or Carter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:21:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: If not “not returning things when told to”, how would you define the crime of “willful retention of national defense information” under the statue he was charged with? Straight up political persecution. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:22:32 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Except for the thousandth time, the charges aren’t about mishandling classified information. So it’s about keeping paper and toner without permission |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:24:36 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: If not “not returning things when told to”, how would you define the crime of “willful retention of national defense information” under the statue he was charged with? So can you see the tautology? He was not charged with mishandling national security material because he declassified them but he is charged with not returning national security materials Wait, what? if he declassified them and could not be charged with mishandling, then how could he be charged with retaining? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:32:32 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: So can you see the tautology? He was not charged with mishandling national security material because he declassified them but he is charged with not returning national security materials Wait, what? if he declassified them and could not be charged with mishandling, then how could he be charged with retaining? Trump could have kept the nuclear codes and deployment schedule/location of our ballistic missile subs. And then when asked to return it, claim he “declassified it”. That in no way means the information is now not “national defense information”, or that a former president has any legal authority to not return it when told to. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:34:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Trump could have kept the nuclear codes and deployment schedule/location of our ballistic missile subs. And then when asked to return it, claim he “declassified it”. That in no way means the information is now not “national defense information”, or that a former president has any legal authority to not return it when told to. What specific information are we referring to? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:37:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Trump could have kept the nuclear codes and deployment schedule/location of our ballistic missile subs. And then when asked to return it, claim he “declassified it”. That in no way means the information is now not “national defense information”, or that a former president has any legal authority to not return it when told to. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: So can you see the tautology? He was not charged with mishandling national security material because he declassified them but he is charged with not returning national security materials Wait, what? if he declassified them and could not be charged with mishandling, then how could he be charged with retaining? Trump could have kept the nuclear codes and deployment schedule/location of our ballistic missile subs. And then when asked to return it, claim he “declassified it”. That in no way means the information is now not “national defense information”, or that a former president has any legal authority to not return it when told to. Well since he was by the Constitution the principal officer for national defense/security, He could make that judgment, not me, you or anyone else can say otherwise other than voting him out. Last time I check the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:43:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Trump could have kept the nuclear codes and deployment schedule/location of our ballistic missile subs. And then when asked to return it, claim he “declassified it”. That in no way means the information is now not “national defense information”, or that a former president has any legal authority to not return it when told to. He had absolute authority to declassify it, and once declassified it's declassified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:47:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: He had absolute authority to declassify it, and once declassified it's declassified. Declassified does not equal “not national defense information”. Which is the whole point. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:47:55 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: He had absolute authority to declassify it, and once declassified it's declassified. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Trump could have kept the nuclear codes and deployment schedule/location of our ballistic missile subs. And then when asked to return it, claim he “declassified it”. That in no way means the information is now not “national defense information”, or that a former president has any legal authority to not return it when told to. He had absolute authority to declassify it, and once declassified it's declassified. And the only thing that can be done is to impeach him. Which they haven't done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:53:44 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Declassified does not equal “not national defense information”. Which is the whole point. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By DonS: He had absolute authority to declassify it, and once declassified it's declassified. Declassified does not equal “not national defense information”. Which is the whole point. Good thing we have a constitution that appoints a principal officer who gets to decide what is national defense information and what is not. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 5:03:51 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Good thing we have a constitution that appoints a principal officer who gets to decide what is national defense information and what is not. So when Joe Biden, the “principle officer who gets to decide what is national defense information” declares that 2 years ago he made it all such, despite not telling anybody or taking any actions, you’ll be good with it? Because if you want to believe Cincinnatus, “There is no authority that dictates HOW to the President when it comes to powers that he is granted by the USC.” |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 5:08:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Dumak]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Trump could have kept the nuclear codes and deployment schedule/location of our ballistic missile subs. And then when asked to return it, claim he “declassified it”. That in no way means the information is now not “national defense information”, or that a former president has any legal authority to not return it when told to. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Trump could have kept the nuclear codes and deployment schedule/location of our ballistic missile subs. And then when asked to return it, claim he “declassified it”. That in no way means the information is now not “national defense information”, or that a former president has any legal authority to not return it when told to. Everything a president states or does is considered declassified. There is no enforcement provision in the presidential records act. Since Trump declassified everything (He certainly did it via executive memo regarding Russia-gate) there is no espionage act that applies. Since the records are White House - aka "Presidential", they don't fall under federal records act laws. Even lefty politifact states that Trump's claims of ultimate authority are mostly true: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/ Nancy Pelosi destroyed a government record when she tore up Trump's speech on camera. No charges for her. Why? Because it was determined the speech didn't fall under federal records act because it fell under the Presidential Records Act. Why Pelosi didn’t violate the law In a statement to PolitiFact, a spokesperson for Kirk cited the federal law Kirk mentioned and a Justice Department webpage summarizing it. "Anything that comes out of the office of the president is a government document under the Presidential Records Act of 1978," the statement said. The statute in question deals with the "concealment, removal, or mutilation generally" of records and reports. It sets a penalty for anyone who "conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys" any government record "filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States." The statute also says that any person with "custody" of a government record cannot "willfully and unlawfully" conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate, falsify or destroy it. "The point of the statute is to prevent people from destroying records in official repositories like the National Archives or in courts," said Georgetown Law professor Victoria Nourse. Pelosi is in the clear, experts said, because her copy of Trump’s speech wasn’t a government record. https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/02/05/politifact-did-nancy-pelosi-break-the-law-by-ripping-trumps-state-of-the-union-speech/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 5:17:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: So when Joe Biden, the “principle officer who gets to decide what is national defense information” declares that 2 years ago he made it all such, despite not telling anybody or taking any actions, you’ll be good with it? Because if you want to believe Cincinnatus, “There is no authority that dictates HOW to the President when it comes to powers that he is granted by the USC.” Did President Biden? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 5:19:11 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Did President Biden? That’s the whole point. According to some, it doesn’t matter. He can declare it after the fact, and it’s in force. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 5:26:10 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: That’s the whole point. According to some, it doesn’t matter. He can declare it after the fact, and it’s in force. So what we have is one POTUS saying it was saying it was declassified and one who has not said anything. Basically fact versus a hypothetical |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 5:33:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Low_Country]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: So what we have is one POTUS saying it was saying it was declassified and one who has not said anything. Basically fact versus a hypothetical Um, yeah? This whole thread is an exercise in hypotheticals at this point. But to be clear - you’re fine with Trump and his unquestioning authority to say what he did, despite no evidence or documentation at the time. So you’ll defend Biden’s authority to do the same. Right? I mean, there are no rules on telling presidents how to be president, and no higher authority to question them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 5:33:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: They were his documents. He took them when he left office. He determined at that time whether they were documents he could take. He declassified them and deemed them to NOT be categorized as National Defense Information. They were HIS. No one in the government can "trump" that determination. ANYONE else's opinion is completely irrelevant. Sure, YOU can disagree with his assessment and determination, but HE had the final say. So sayeth the US Constitution. I absolutely GUARANTEE that SCOTUS will see it that way, too. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not true. It’s absolutely true. Unless you’re going to tell me Trump was still president in 2022. He was charged with not giving documents back to the government when told to. And then engaging in obstruction of justice. All after he left office. They were his documents. He took them when he left office. He determined at that time whether they were documents he could take. He declassified them and deemed them to NOT be categorized as National Defense Information. They were HIS. No one in the government can "trump" that determination. ANYONE else's opinion is completely irrelevant. Sure, YOU can disagree with his assessment and determination, but HE had the final say. So sayeth the US Constitution. I absolutely GUARANTEE that SCOTUS will see it that way, too. I'd put $1,000,000 against that if I had it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 5:33:34 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You misunderstand the answer? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Very well: You. Running from a challenge... You misunderstand the answer? As I said…… |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 5:37:28 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Trump always acted in the best interest of national security. Same can't be said of Biden, Obama, Clinton or Carter. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Yeah, the authority of a president on such things has never been in doubt. But along with that are assumptions that the President would always act in good faith or in the best national security interests of the United States. The only check and balance on a president is the power of impeachment, and I could come up with plenty of hypotheticals regarding classification issues which should trigger impeachment. I’m sure you could too. Trump always acted in the best interest of national security. Same can't be said of Biden, Obama, Clinton or Carter.  Surely you troll. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 5:49:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Surely you troll. You are saying someone is trolling? That is fucking hilarious. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 5:50:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Um, yeah? This whole thread is an exercise in hypotheticals at this point. But to be clear - you’re fine with Trump and his unquestioning authority to say what he did, despite no evidence or documentation at the time. So you’ll defend Biden’s authority to do the same. Right? I mean, there are no rules on telling presidents how to be president, and no higher authority to question them. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: So what we have is one POTUS saying it was saying it was declassified and one who has not said anything. Basically fact versus a hypothetical Um, yeah? This whole thread is an exercise in hypotheticals at this point. But to be clear - you’re fine with Trump and his unquestioning authority to say what he did, despite no evidence or documentation at the time. So you’ll defend Biden’s authority to do the same. Right? I mean, there are no rules on telling presidents how to be president, and no higher authority to question them. The problem with your hypothetical is that we have a Constitutional provision against expost facto laws. I don't see the courts enforcing any crime against anyone for possessing a White House lunch menu after a president says years later it is classified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:01:21 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Except for the thousandth time, the charges aren’t about mishandling classified information. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Well, then that's that. Stop posting. The thread is finished. Except for the thousandth time, the charges aren’t about mishandling classified information. It doesn’t matter. The President is the head of the Executive Branch. That includes National Security and Defense. If he deems he can take it with him, he can. No regulation or law can trump that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:02:37 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: If not “not returning things when told to”, how would you define the crime of “willful retention of national defense information” under the statue he was charged with? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: The charges are for not returning things, the only previous case on the subject had the ruling that POTUS got to decide what were his and what were not. Until that is overturned by SCOTUS precedent is on Mr Trump’s side. If not “not returning things when told to”, how would you define the crime of “willful retention of national defense information” under the statue he was charged with? No statute Trumps his power to make that decision. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:05:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Um, yeah? This whole thread is an exercise in hypotheticals at this point. But to be clear - you’re fine with Trump and his unquestioning authority to say what he did, despite no evidence or documentation at the time. So you’ll defend Biden’s authority to do the same. Right? I mean, there are no rules on telling presidents how to be president, and no higher authority to question them. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: So what we have is one POTUS saying it was saying it was declassified and one who has not said anything. Basically fact versus a hypothetical Um, yeah? This whole thread is an exercise in hypotheticals at this point. But to be clear - you’re fine with Trump and his unquestioning authority to say what he did, despite no evidence or documentation at the time. So you’ll defend Biden’s authority to do the same. Right? I mean, there are no rules on telling presidents how to be president, and no higher authority to question them. Each President has those powers, yes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:06:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'd put $1,000,000 against that if I had it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Not true. It’s absolutely true. Unless you’re going to tell me Trump was still president in 2022. He was charged with not giving documents back to the government when told to. And then engaging in obstruction of justice. All after he left office. They were his documents. He took them when he left office. He determined at that time whether they were documents he could take. He declassified them and deemed them to NOT be categorized as National Defense Information. They were HIS. No one in the government can "trump" that determination. ANYONE else's opinion is completely irrelevant. Sure, YOU can disagree with his assessment and determination, but HE had the final say. So sayeth the US Constitution. I absolutely GUARANTEE that SCOTUS will see it that way, too. I'd put $1,000,000 against that if I had it. Make it a dollar. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:06:58 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: The problem with your hypothetical is that we have a Constitutional provision against expost facto laws. I don't see the courts enforcing any crime against anyone for possessing a White House lunch menu after a president says years later it is classified. This is the problem with the defense of Trump, you see? It’s not ex post facto, if the president can declare he did it 2 years prior. Even if he didn’t tell anybody or take any associated actions. He can go back in time and retroactively change reality. That’s the absurdity. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:09:43 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: This is the problem with the defense of Trump, you see? It’s not ex post facto, if the president can declare he did it 2 years prior. Even if he didn’t tell anybody or take any associated actions. He can go back in time and retroactively change reality. That’s the absurdity. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Imzadi: The problem with your hypothetical is that we have a Constitutional provision against expost facto laws. I don't see the courts enforcing any crime against anyone for possessing a White House lunch menu after a president says years later it is classified. This is the problem with the defense of Trump, you see? It’s not ex post facto, if the president can declare he did it 2 years prior. Even if he didn’t tell anybody or take any associated actions. He can go back in time and retroactively change reality. That’s the absurdity. Is there a law or regulation that forces a President to do these things the way you want him to? No. So that’s that. You may call it “absurd,” but it comes from the US Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:13:09 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Is there a law or regulation that forces a President to do these things the way you want him to? No. So that’s that. You may call it “absurd,” but it comes from the US Constitution. Presidential powers granted by the constitution don’t apply to ex-presidents, and actions they take as ex-presidents. Including non-sensical claims of what the did, or didn’t do, when president. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:15:40 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wizzi01: You are saying someone is trolling? That is fucking hilarious. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wizzi01: Originally Posted By CMiller: Surely you troll. You are saying someone is trolling? That is fucking hilarious. Yes, yes it is hilarious |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:18:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Surely you troll. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By DonS: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Yeah, the authority of a president on such things has never been in doubt. But along with that are assumptions that the President would always act in good faith or in the best national security interests of the United States. The only check and balance on a president is the power of impeachment, and I could come up with plenty of hypotheticals regarding classification issues which should trigger impeachment. I’m sure you could too. Trump always acted in the best interest of national security. Same can't be said of Biden, Obama, Clinton or Carter. Surely you troll. It's objectively true. |
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:24:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Declassified does not equal “not national defense information”. Which is the whole point. So unconstitutional WW1 era Wilson laws? The classification laws came about because simply criminalizing "national defense information" because feels is fundamentally in conflict with the Constitution and rule of law generally. But we already knew that about you. It applies to all supporters of the deep state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:27:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Presidential powers granted by the constitution don’t apply to ex-presidents, and actions they take as ex-presidents. Including non-sensical claims of what the did, or didn’t do, when president. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Is there a law or regulation that forces a President to do these things the way you want him to? No. So that’s that. You may call it “absurd,” but it comes from the US Constitution. Presidential powers granted by the constitution don’t apply to ex-presidents, and actions they take as ex-presidents. Including non-sensical claims of what the did, or didn’t do, when president. You must prove that he didn’t do what he claims he did. You can’t, can you? Therefore, you’re done. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 6:31:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Um, yeah? This whole thread is an exercise in hypotheticals at this point. But to be clear - you’re fine with Trump and his unquestioning authority to say what he did, despite no evidence or documentation at the time. So you’ll defend Biden’s authority to do the same. Right? I mean, there are no rules on telling presidents how to be president, and no higher authority to question them. There's no requirement for "evidence or documentation". Biden already got away with possession of classified documents he didn't have the power to declass. There's also evidence Hunter accessed those documents for some of his emails and business deals. Biden didn't claim those docs were declassed, however, but that's because in the context of the narrative he doesn't want to demonstrate that power. Biden should be impeached, convicted, then tried for crimes against the US. And not classified document related stuff, but for his influence peddling. And probably other things, like trying to influence an election by prosecuting his opposition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 7:10:29 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: So unconstitutional WW1 era Wilson laws? The classification laws came about because simply criminalizing "national defense information" because feels is fundamentally in conflict with the Constitution and rule of law generally. But we already knew that about you. It applies to all supporters of the deep state. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Declassified does not equal “not national defense information”. Which is the whole point. So unconstitutional WW1 era Wilson laws? The classification laws came about because simply criminalizing "national defense information" because feels is fundamentally in conflict with the Constitution and rule of law generally. But we already knew that about you. It applies to all supporters of the deep state. Don't bother w/L_C, it's like trying to play chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good at chess you are, he just craps all over the board, knocking over pieces and strutting like he's won. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 7:11:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You must prove that he didn’t do what he claims he did. You can’t, can you? Therefore, you’re done. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything points against Trump. Testimony, documents, and if I dare, his entire life of cheating and dishonesty. His entire administration has already said he’s full of it. Literally the only thing on Trump’s side is “But I said I did”. And now I’m in before - “The president said so, so it was.” |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 7:21:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything points against Trump. Testimony, documents, and if I dare, his entire life of cheating and dishonesty. His entire administration has already said he’s full of it. Literally the only thing on Trump’s side is “But I said I did”. And now I’m in before - “The president said so, so it was.” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You must prove that he didn’t do what he claims he did. You can’t, can you? Therefore, you’re done. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything points against Trump. Testimony, documents, and if I dare, his entire life of cheating and dishonesty. His entire administration has already said he’s full of it. Literally the only thing on Trump’s side is “But I said I did”. And now I’m in before - “The president said so, so it was.” Nothing you just cited in any way whatsoever, could be considered proof that he did not do what he claims he did. It is the conundrum you and the Biden supporters must come to terms with. You cannot prove it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 7:25:38 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: This is the problem with the defense of Trump, you see? It’s not ex post facto, if the president can declare he did it 2 years prior. Even if he didn’t tell anybody or take any associated actions. He can go back in time and retroactively change reality. That’s the absurdity. He doesn't have to ..the second he removed those documents from a SCIF they were declassified..PERIOD..nobody else can say yes no or boo, his choice and only his no matter how bad it bothers the N-T's and progressives.. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 7:37:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything points against Trump. Testimony, documents, and if I dare, his entire life of cheating and dishonesty. His entire administration has already said he’s full of it. Literally the only thing on Trump’s side is “But I said I did”. And now I’m in before - “The president said so, so it was.” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You must prove that he didn’t do what he claims he did. You can’t, can you? Therefore, you’re done. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything points against Trump. Testimony, documents, and if I dare, his entire life of cheating and dishonesty. His entire administration has already said he’s full of it. Literally the only thing on Trump’s side is “But I said I did”. And now I’m in before - “The president said so, so it was.” I'm sure you know that when people start demanding you prove a negative, it's completely pointless to continue the conversation. You simply are not dealing with honest actors. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 7:43:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: I'm sure you know that when people start demanding you prove a negative, it's completely pointless to continue the conversation. You simply are not dealing with honest actors. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You must prove that he didn’t do what he claims he did. You can’t, can you? Therefore, you’re done. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything points against Trump. Testimony, documents, and if I dare, his entire life of cheating and dishonesty. His entire administration has already said he’s full of it. Literally the only thing on Trump’s side is “But I said I did”. And now I’m in before - “The president said so, so it was.” I'm sure you know that when people start demanding you prove a negative, it's completely pointless to continue the conversation. You simply are not dealing with honest actors. You miss the point. YOU guys are the ones who have placed yourself in that position. Trump says he did it, AND the Constitution supports his claim that he need not provide any proof. His claim is good enough. If you disagree, you must prove the negative. He must be proven guilty. He need not prove his innocence. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 7:43:53 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Trump could have kept the nuclear codes and deployment schedule/location of our ballistic missile subs. And then when asked to return it, claim he “declassified it”. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: So can you see the tautology? He was not charged with mishandling national security material because he declassified them but he is charged with not returning national security materials Wait, what? if he declassified them and could not be charged with mishandling, then how could he be charged with retaining? Trump could have kept the nuclear codes and deployment schedule/location of our ballistic missile subs. And then when asked to return it, claim he “declassified it”. Yup. Worst system except for all the rest. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 7:46:40 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Declassified does not equal “not national defense information”. Which is the whole point. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By DonS: He had absolute authority to declassify it, and once declassified it's declassified. Declassified does not equal “not national defense information”. Which is the whole point. Were these the only copies of this "national defense information"? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 7:46:42 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: You miss the point. YOU guys are the ones who have placed yourself in that position. Trump says he did it, AND the Constitution supports his claim that he need not provide any proof. His claim is good enough. If you disagree, you must prove the negative. He must be proven guilty. He need not prove his innocence. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You must prove that he didn’t do what he claims he did. You can’t, can you? Therefore, you’re done. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything points against Trump. Testimony, documents, and if I dare, his entire life of cheating and dishonesty. His entire administration has already said he’s full of it. Literally the only thing on Trump’s side is “But I said I did”. And now I’m in before - “The president said so, so it was.” I'm sure you know that when people start demanding you prove a negative, it's completely pointless to continue the conversation. You simply are not dealing with honest actors. You miss the point. YOU guys are the ones who have placed yourself in that position. Trump says he did it, AND the Constitution supports his claim that he need not provide any proof. His claim is good enough. If you disagree, you must prove the negative. He must be proven guilty. He need not prove his innocence. As I said who knows how many pages ago, a federal appeals court panel disagrees with you, so much so that they didn't even think it was necessary to discuss it. e.g. they laughed your position out of court. You're going to have to come up with something better than "the Constitution says so" if you expect to be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 7:47:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: As I said who knows how many pages ago, a federal appeals court panel disagrees with you, so much so that they didn't even think it was necessary to discuss it. e.g. they laughed your position out of court. You're going to have to come up with something better than "the Constitution says so" if you expect to be taken seriously. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: You must prove that he didn’t do what he claims he did. You can’t, can you? Therefore, you’re done. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything points against Trump. Testimony, documents, and if I dare, his entire life of cheating and dishonesty. His entire administration has already said he’s full of it. Literally the only thing on Trump’s side is “But I said I did”. And now I’m in before - “The president said so, so it was.” I'm sure you know that when people start demanding you prove a negative, it's completely pointless to continue the conversation. You simply are not dealing with honest actors. You miss the point. YOU guys are the ones who have placed yourself in that position. Trump says he did it, AND the Constitution supports his claim that he need not provide any proof. His claim is good enough. If you disagree, you must prove the negative. He must be proven guilty. He need not prove his innocence. As I said who knows how many pages ago, a federal appeals court panel disagrees with you, so much so that they didn't even think it was necessary to discuss it. e.g. they laughed your position out of court. You're going to have to come up with something better than "the Constitution says so" if you expect to be taken seriously. A federal appeals court panel?  If this goes anywhere (doubtful), it goes to SCOTUS. Do you know how SCOTUS has treated cases such as this? You should, by now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 7:48:24 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: So when Joe Biden, the “principle officer who gets to decide what is national defense information” declares that 2 years ago he made it all such, despite not telling anybody or taking any actions, you’ll be good with it? Because if you want to believe Cincinnatus, “There is no authority that dictates HOW to the President when it comes to powers that he is granted by the USC.” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: Good thing we have a constitution that appoints a principal officer who gets to decide what is national defense information and what is not. So when Joe Biden, the “principle officer who gets to decide what is national defense information” declares that 2 years ago he made it all such, despite not telling anybody or taking any actions, you’ll be good with it? Because if you want to believe Cincinnatus, “There is no authority that dictates HOW to the President when it comes to powers that he is granted by the USC.” Originally Posted By Low_Country: But along with that are assumptions that the President would always act in good faith or in the best national security interests of the United States. |
|
|
|
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.
