User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 7:51:56 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And in the end, DONALD TRUMP PUSSIED OUT AND DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: There was an investigation done by the FBI and headed up by the Trump appointed Director and AG and concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to bring charges, just because Hillary is better at not getting caught red handed doesn't change what Trump did. That's a lie and totally disingenuous. There was ample evidence of her crimes including destruction of evidence and destruction of government records. There wasn't a real investigation, there was a cover up. Because Clinton's crimes lead to a cobal of criminals and treasonous activity. Yes Trump didn't order anyone to lock up his political opponents, who probably wouldn't have followed them, but he shouldn't have needed to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 8:05:32 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes Trump didn't order anyone to lock up his political opponents, who probably wouldn't have followed them, but he shouldn't have needed to. The uproar over that ? , deafening . They were daring him to do it , Comey ?, not a chance. They were calling him a dictator as it was . Biden does it ?, that's different . |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 8:06:24 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why does it matter if it's part of the charges or not? You think the people here are only capable of drawing a conclusion based on the actions of the DoJ and not based on the words of Trump himself? So since Biden hasn't been charged with being a corrupt pedo - we shouldn't judge him for being one based on his own words/actions?  The facts are the facts and the facts show Trump values classified information in much the same way I value the feedback you just provided. Like the potato - he's completely unfit for office. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:
You guys are allowing yourself to be manipulated Why does it matter if it's part of the charges or not? You think the people here are only capable of drawing a conclusion based on the actions of the DoJ and not based on the words of Trump himself? So since Biden hasn't been charged with being a corrupt pedo - we shouldn't judge him for being one based on his own words/actions? The facts are the facts and the facts show Trump values classified information in much the same way I value the feedback you just provided. Like the potato - he's completely unfit for office.  Once again, you cannot trust CNN or a filing from the Biden selected special counsel that is trying to frame Trump. Trump was never wreckless with classified information. There are corrupt individuals in the government selectively leaking things(sometimes classified) to push the anti-Trump narrative. Stop falling for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 8:12:15 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There was an investigation done by the FBI and headed up by the Trump appointed Director and AG and concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to bring charges, just because Hillary is better at not getting caught red handed doesn't change what Trump did. Wether or not he did or didn't declassify anything doesn't matter and is irrelevant under the espionage act, the law says it has to be related to national defense and not public, this covers non-classfied non-public defense information as well as classified information, hell the classification system didn't even exist when the law was written. That's absolutely not true, there are specific processes required. If those processes were followed there are very detailed and traceable records of it. The DOJ doesn't get to decide if she gets prosecuted, a federal grand jury does and there is jurisprudence around probable cause required to get a judge to empanel a grande jury. If you read the indictment they have waaaaaaay more than just this tape, they have multiple tapes, and they have corroborating testimony for the tapes, they pierced attorney client privileges and got trump's lawyers notes and emails where they documented his attempts to get the lawyers to commit crimes on his behalf, this shit is BEYOND open and shut. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: All along, I have assumed that this was a bullshit charge, and politically driven. The hypocrisy of charging him when Hillary was not charged was outrageous and depressing to me. There was an investigation done by the FBI and headed up by the Trump appointed Director and AG and concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to bring charges, just because Hillary is better at not getting caught red handed doesn't change what Trump did. Plus, the fact that Trump HAD the authority to de-classify anything he wanted before he left office made the entire thing seem silly and ridiculous to me. Wether or not he did or didn't declassify anything doesn't matter and is irrelevant under the espionage act, the law says it has to be related to national defense and not public, this covers non-classfied non-public defense information as well as classified information, hell the classification system didn't even exist when the law was written. It would be unprovable that he didn't declassify (since there doesn't seem to be any specific process required), so why even bother going after him? That's absolutely not true, there are specific processes required. If those processes were followed there are very detailed and traceable records of it. But, IF that recording is real, then I do think Trump has fucked himself here. I mean, if a prosecutor hears this recording, and has confirmation it is real (presumably by interviewing the other people/witnesses who were present), is there really a choice? I think they pretty much have to prosecute, since Trump is on tape admitting to willfully violating the law. Don't get me wrong, I think Hillary should have been prosecuted, and potentially gone to jail, and I am still angry and disappointed that didn't happen.  The DOJ doesn't get to decide if she gets prosecuted, a federal grand jury does and there is jurisprudence around probable cause required to get a judge to empanel a grande jury. But, I can also see how her high-powered and expensive legal defense could have created a lot of doubt and ambiguity if it went to court. But the audio recording of Trump pretty much removes all doubt and ambiguity in this case. He is openly admitting that he did not de-classify the documents, and he is deliberately showing them to uncleared people. That seems pretty open and shut. If you read the indictment they have waaaaaaay more than just this tape, they have multiple tapes, and they have corroborating testimony for the tapes, they pierced attorney client privileges and got trump's lawyers notes and emails where they documented his attempts to get the lawyers to commit crimes on his behalf, this shit is BEYOND open and shut.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 8:36:30 AM EST
[#5]
 Hillary Clinton & James Comey - What Difference Does It Make? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 8:44:55 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meanwhile Biden is FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 10:32:29 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The first 30-something pages of the indictment are the "introduction", pretty much laying out all the evidence of Trump doing bad shit with classified information. Improper retention, disclosure, and his obstruction. It's pretty much a narrative, painting a picture of what happened, and when. After that, are the 37 counts. 31 specific classified documents, and six charges for lying/obstruction stuff. Though in this indictment, Trump has only been charged with alleged crimes committed at Mar-a-Lago, as he is being tried in the southern district in Florida. There is speculation there may be another separate indictment for shit he did in New Jersey. I believe the interview in question took place in New Jersey. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What am I missing? If the document isn't among the charges, presumably it's not classified. So what is the transcript evidence of, exactly? The first 30-something pages of the indictment are the "introduction", pretty much laying out all the evidence of Trump doing bad shit with classified information. Improper retention, disclosure, and his obstruction. It's pretty much a narrative, painting a picture of what happened, and when. After that, are the 37 counts. 31 specific classified documents, and six charges for lying/obstruction stuff. Though in this indictment, Trump has only been charged with alleged crimes committed at Mar-a-Lago, as he is being tried in the southern district in Florida. There is speculation there may be another separate indictment for shit he did in New Jersey. I believe the interview in question took place in New Jersey. You spent the first 10 pages acting like this was a smoking gun, ridiculing anyone who questioned it, saying over and over and over "listen to the audio". But now there is "speculation" that it is a smoking gun for something else, somewhere else, at a later date. How many times has this happened to you over the last 7 years? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 10:45:30 AM EST
[#8]
When this is over I believe it will be yet another case if libs taking the bait and looking like idiots again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 10:46:17 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Apparently Trump, two AGs, a special council, and a federal judge don't agree with your assessment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's a lie and totally disingenuous. There was ample evidence of her crimes including destruction of evidence and destruction of government records. There wasn't a real investigation, there was a cover up. Because Clinton's crimes lead to a cobal of criminals and treasonous activity. Apparently Trump, two AGs, a special council, and a federal judge don't agree with your assessment. Just out of curiosity are you suggesting the system is clean and this is all on the up and up? GTFOH. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 10:47:23 AM EST
[#10]
The Executive means something in the Constitution under Article II. The bureaucracy, Congress or Judiciary cannot encroach on the plenary powers of The Executive. The aforementioned position is rational and defensible and has been bolster by SCOTUS thus having Stare Decisis. The Executive is the sole determiner of classification, full stop.
This thread is finished and can be locked now. Your welcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 12:15:34 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Executive means something in the Constitution under Article II. The bureaucracy, Congress or Judiciary cannot encroach on the plenary powers of The Executive. The aforementioned position is rational and defensible and has been bolster by SCOTUS thus having Stare Decisis. The Executive is the sole determiner of classification, full stop. This thread is finished and can be locked now. Your welcome. Please keep this thread open for apologies: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-memo-not-among-the-31-records-underlying-charges-in-trump-federal-indictment/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 12:57:17 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Please keep this thread open for apologies: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-memo-not-among-the-31-records-underlying-charges-in-trump-federal-indictment/ Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Executive means something in the Constitution under Article II. The bureaucracy, Congress or Judiciary cannot encroach on the plenary powers of The Executive. The aforementioned position is rational and defensible and has been bolster by SCOTUS thus having Stare Decisis. The Executive is the sole determiner of classification, full stop. This thread is finished and can be locked now. Your welcome. Please keep this thread open for apologies: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-memo-not-among-the-31-records-underlying-charges-in-trump-federal-indictment/  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 1:15:08 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just out of curiosity are you suggesting the system is clean and this is all on the up and up? GTFOH. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's a lie and totally disingenuous. There was ample evidence of her crimes including destruction of evidence and destruction of government records. There wasn't a real investigation, there was a cover up. Because Clinton's crimes lead to a cobal of criminals and treasonous activity. Apparently Trump, two AGs, a special council, and a federal judge don't agree with your assessment. Just out of curiosity are you suggesting the system is clean and this is all on the up and up? GTFOH. If the system is corrupt then why couldn't Trump make it happen? Does he not have influence over his own appointees? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 1:21:29 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Executive means something in the Constitution under Article II. The bureaucracy, Congress or Judiciary cannot encroach on the plenary powers of The Executive. The aforementioned position is rational and defensible and has been bolster by SCOTUS thus having Stare Decisis. The Executive is the sole determiner of classification, full stop. This thread is finished and can be locked now. Your welcome. I 100% agree that Trump could have declassified any of these documents while he was president. The fact that there's is no specified mechanism means that ANY president can declassify stuff any way they feel like it - there doesn't have to be anything in writing, or any particular form or procedure. That fact is why I believed the accusation that he has classified documents in his possession was bullshit, because he could have declassified them any way he wanted before leaving office. The is precisely why it is so problematic that he is recorded after he left office, explicitly saying that he DIDN'T declassify them. By being recorded saying that, he is basically destroying the otherwise water-tight defense that he de-classified them before leaving office, in whatever way he wanted. That defense would have been 100% sufficient, IMO - but he ruined that by admitting that he did not declassify. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 1:34:16 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You spent the first 10 pages acting like this was a smoking gun, ridiculing anyone who questioned it, saying over and over and over "listen to the audio". But now there is "speculation" that it is a smoking gun for something else, somewhere else, at a later date. How many times has this happened to you over the last 7 years? Trump has 31 indictments for improperly maintaining classified information. And all along the defense from his sycophants is that "he is the president, he can wave his hand and declassify anything". And while that may or may not be true, this audio is pretty definitive proof of Trump admitting he did not declassify it, and knew that he was in possession of classified information. Not to mention the gross disregard for national security information, which even if he is not indicted for it yet, is abhorrently reprehensible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 1:40:20 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trump has 31 indictments for improperly maintaining classified information. And all along the defense from his sycophants is that "he is the president, he can wave his hand and declassify anything". And while that may or may not be true, this audio is pretty definitive proof of Trump admitting he did not declassify it, and knew that he was in possession of classified information. Not to mention the gross disregard for national security information, which even if he is not indicted for it yet, is abhorrently reprehensible. The audio is definitive proof of what? That he didn't declassify something that nobody is even accusing him of having or mishandling? Just admit it, you were duped. Again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 1:48:22 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The audio is definitive proof of what? That he didn't declassify something that nobody is even accusing him of having or mishandling? Just admit it, you were duped. Again. Um, he absolutely is being accused of mishandling that information. He just wasn't formally charged for that specific incident. Yet. If you want to defend the indefensible, be my guest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 1:50:30 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trump has 31 indictments for improperly maintaining classified information. And all along the defense from his sycophants is that "he is the president, he can wave his hand and declassify anything". And while that may or may not be true, this audio is pretty definitive proof of Trump admitting he did not declassify it, and knew that he was in possession of classified information. Not to mention the gross disregard for national security information, which even if he is not indicted for it yet, is abhorrently reprehensible. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You spent the first 10 pages acting like this was a smoking gun, ridiculing anyone who questioned it, saying over and over and over "listen to the audio". But now there is "speculation" that it is a smoking gun for something else, somewhere else, at a later date. How many times has this happened to you over the last 7 years? Trump has 31 indictments for improperly maintaining classified information. And all along the defense from his sycophants is that "he is the president, he can wave his hand and declassify anything". And while that may or may not be true, this audio is pretty definitive proof of Trump admitting he did not declassify it, and knew that he was in possession of classified information. Not to mention the gross disregard for national security information, which even if he is not indicted for it yet, is abhorrently reprehensible. The biden selected special counsel doesn't have the "classified information" that he was supposedly in possession of and waving to everyone in the audio so we'll just file this under yet another instance of gaslighting and narrative pushing that is completely false and defamatory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 1:51:47 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Um, he absolutely is being accused of mishandling that information. He just wasn't formally charged for that specific incident. Yet. If you want to defend the indefensible, be my guest. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The audio is definitive proof of what? That he didn't declassify something that nobody is even accusing him of having or mishandling? Just admit it, you were duped. Again. Um, he absolutely is being accused of mishandling that information. He just wasn't formally charged for that specific incident. Yet. If you want to defend the indefensible, be my guest. Lol. You're playing mental gymnastics now and you know it. Just admit it, CNN got you again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 1:53:43 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol. You're playing mental gymnastics now and you know it. Just admit it, CNN got you again. Trump previously asserted he held on to no classified information. He is charged with illegal and willful retention of classified information. If you don't see how this audio of him plays right into those charges, I can't help you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 1:57:32 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trump previously asserted he held on to no classified information. He is charged with illegal and willful retention of classified information. If you don't see how this audio of him plays right into those charges, I can't help you. But he isn't charged with retaining anything discussed in the audio. If you can't understand how these pieces do not fit together, I can't help you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 1:58:35 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But he isn't charged with retaining anything discussed in the audio. If you can't understand how these pieces do not fit together, I can't help you. Well, the grand jury disagreed. And the trial jury is likely to as well. I mean, half the posters in the thread were saying that this was an AI fake from the deep state. Now that its clear that isn't the case, you guys have moved on to "well, can you prove he was actually showing classified documents since there is no video?" Trump asserted it was actually 'highly confidential' information about a golf course, so we know that is more BS. And now its, "yeah, well, he wasn't formally indicted for this specific indcident, so whats the big deal?" Dude they took over 100 classifed documents from Mar A Lago, and he is only facing charges for a fraction of them. You sure you want to keep going on about how I'm the one being duped? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 2:06:33 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, the grand jury disagreed. And the trial jury is likely to as well. Guilty until proven innocent! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 2:06:34 PM EST
[#24]
Children throwing sticks and stones. Governments are an embarrassment to humanity, and those that are into watching the drama are ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 2:10:56 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, the grand jury disagreed. And the trial jury is likely to as well. Ahh, the ole "they must know something we don't" logic. Thanks for piecing that together. Great work here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 2:14:55 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Executive means something in the Constitution under Article II. The bureaucracy, Congress or Judiciary cannot encroach on the plenary powers of The Executive. The aforementioned position is rational and defensible and has been bolster by SCOTUS thus having Stare Decisis. The Executive is the sole determiner of classification, full stop. This thread is finished and can be locked now. Your welcome. Not exactly... You should probably keep your day job and leave constitutional analysis to those more qualified. The Constitution prescribes a system of checks and balances whereby the powers of the federal government are shared among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. First, Trump is no longer president and presidential power is hardly absolute. For example, a president cannot declare war, decide how federal money will be spent, choose Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices without Senate approval. A president cannot make laws or interpret laws and the Judicial branch can declare acts of the President unconstitutional, which renders them unenforceable. I am a firm believer in limiting presidential powers, some of which harkens from the days on monarchies.... the balance is we want the president to be able to act without being mired down by legal impediments... We have historically expected the president to honor his position and abide by traditions of restraint and bipartisanship.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 2:51:54 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not exactly... You should probably keep your day job and leave constitutional analysis to those  more qualified . The Constitution prescribes a system of checks and balances whereby the powers of the federal government are shared among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. First, Trump is no longer president and presidential power is hardly absolute. For example, a president cannot declare war, decide how federal money will be spent, choose Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices without Senate approval. A president cannot make laws or interpret laws and the Judicial branch can declare acts of the President unconstitutional, which renders them unenforceable. I am a firm believer in limiting presidential powers, some of which harkens from the days on monarchies.... the balance is we want the president to be able to act without being mired down by legal impediments... We have historically expected the president to honor his position and abide by traditions of restraint and bipartisanship....Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Executive means something in the Constitution under Article II. The bureaucracy, Congress or Judiciary cannot encroach on the plenary powers of The Executive. The aforementioned position is rational and defensible and has been bolster by SCOTUS thus having Stare Decisis. The Executive is the sole determiner of classification, full stop. This thread is finished and can be locked now. Your welcome. Not exactly... You should probably keep your day job and leave constitutional analysis to those more qualified . The Constitution prescribes a system of checks and balances whereby the powers of the federal government are shared among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. First, Trump is no longer president and presidential power is hardly absolute. For example, a president cannot declare war, decide how federal money will be spent, choose Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices without Senate approval. A president cannot make laws or interpret laws and the Judicial branch can declare acts of the President unconstitutional, which renders them unenforceable. I am a firm believer in limiting presidential powers, some of which harkens from the days on monarchies.... the balance is we want the president to be able to act without being mired down by legal impediments... We have historically expected the president to honor his position and abide by traditions of restraint and bipartisanship....More qualifiedEverything you stated in your post states what is in the Constitution. What you did not address is the classification authority the The Executive has when The Executive is running the Executive Branch. You also did not address that the documents in question are not listed in the indictment. Lies of omission are still lies. Moreover, you and I both know that every living President can, and by your legal prudence/s/, should be prosecuted for holding on the their generated documents that all of them currently have in their possession, (I can't wait for Jimmy Carter to be keel hauled). Nice dodge. Your logic results in the Executive Branch in charge of The Executive. The Unitary Executive is a Constitutional theory that is rational and Constitutional, and Judge Amy Coney Barrett agrees with me. Your argument is not with me, it is with the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 3:04:10 PM EST
[#28]
In this new age of deepfake technology, anything "leaked" from the corrupt government should be taken with a truckload of salt.
Guaranteed it's either made up out of whole cloth, or key context edited out to paint a picture. After the whole Covid scam, how anyone can take the government seriously amazes me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 3:05:38 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In this new age of deepfake technology, anything "leaked" from the corrupt government should be taken with a truckload of salt. Guaranteed it's either made up out of whole cloth, or key context edited out to paint a picture. After the whole Covid scam, how anyone can take the government seriously amazes me. Or, when Trump addressed it, he didn't deny any of it. He just said he wasn't actually showing anybody a classified document - he said the "secret" and "highly confidential" plans were actually building plans for a golf course.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 6:18:09 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Um, he absolutely is being accused of mishandling that information. He just wasn't formally charged for that specific incident. Yet. If you want to defend the indefensible, be my guest. After the elaborate crimes and schemes that were outright covered up for Clinton and the Bidens and the extent that those in power who support them have gone to to commit crimes themselves to go after Trump why should I or anyone else care what Trump may or may not have actually done? I couldn't give a shit less. In fact, I hope he did do it and more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 7:30:37 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In this new age of deepfake technology, anything "leaked" from the corrupt government should be taken with a truckload of salt. Guaranteed it's either made up out of whole cloth, or key context edited out to paint a picture. After the whole Covid scam, how anyone can take the government seriously amazes me. You realize that Trump was the government during the “Covid scam” right? If only someone would hurry up and leak some of The Kraken or the damning evidence on Hunter’s laptop, then we’d be able to fight fire with fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 8:35:38 PM EST
[#32]
87 indictments!
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 8:50:33 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When this is over I believe it will be yet another case if libs taking the bait and looking like idiots again. Gaslighting is considered successful if it muddied the waters for a decent length of time, and if it gave the army of rezident social media influencers enough talking points to throw more shade. Regardless of outcome, this commie strat worked. And worked on GD. Again. Rinse and repeat, the same accounts will show up for the next one too.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 9:32:47 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, the grand jury disagreed. And the trial jury is likely to as well. I mean, half the posters in the thread were saying that this was an AI fake from the deep state. Now that its clear that isn't the case, you guys have moved on to "well, can you prove he was actually showing classified documents since there is no video?" Trump asserted it was actually 'highly confidential' information about a golf course, so we know that is more BS. And now its, "yeah, well, he wasn't formally indicted for this specific indcident, so whats the big deal?" Dude they took over 100 classifed documents from Mar A Lago, and he is only facing charges for a fraction of them. You sure you want to keep going on about how I'm the one being duped? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: But he isn't charged with retaining anything discussed in the audio. If you can't understand how these pieces do not fit together, I can't help you. Well, the grand jury disagreed. And the trial jury is likely to as well. I mean, half the posters in the thread were saying that this was an AI fake from the deep state. Now that its clear that isn't the case, you guys have moved on to "well, can you prove he was actually showing classified documents since there is no video?" Trump asserted it was actually 'highly confidential' information about a golf course, so we know that is more BS. And now its, "yeah, well, he wasn't formally indicted for this specific indcident, so whats the big deal?" Dude they took over 100 classifed documents from Mar A Lago, and he is only facing charges for a fraction of them. You sure you want to keep going on about how I'm the one being duped? You can indict a ham sandwich..you should probably google that to understand what it means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 9:43:40 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When a poster constantly attacks others and claims they're communists, leftists, Biden voters, etc because they don't support a certain candidate's anti-gun stance. It is laughable, especially when that poster can't/refuses to prove they're a gun owner. This is a gun forum first and foremost. One of the goals for Arfcom by the late great Arfcom Founder, Edward Avila, was to promote, protect, and advance gun rights. Having people here promote anti-gun candidates goes against that. We, the collective membership should be vigilant and make sure people of ulterior motives are not given safe refuge here. They should be expunged and excommunicated. Proving one simply owns firearms is a very simple litmus test. A cop wanting people to post pictures of their guns or be banned. How rich. Has it ever crossed your mind that it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS? I bet not. What litmus test should we give you, Mr. Police Officer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 9:53:08 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More qualifiedEverything you stated in your post states what is in the Constitution. What you did not address is the classification authority the The Executive has when The Executive is running the Executive Branch. You also did not address that the documents in question are not listed in the indictment. Lies of omission are still lies. Moreover, you and I both know that every living President can, and by your legal prudence/s/, should be prosecuted for holding on the their generated documents that all of them currently have in their possession, (I can't wait for Jimmy Carter to be keel hauled). Nice dodge. Your logic results in the Executive Branch in charge of The Executive. The Unitary Executive is a Constitutional theory that is rational and Constitutional, and Judge Amy Coney Barrett agrees with me. Your argument is not with me, it is with the Constitution. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say but Trump's executive authority vanished with his presidency. I most certainly am not arguing his culpability without more facts but I suspect Trump has once again created his own predicament... for no apparent reason other than hubris... He can no longer hide behind the shelter of presidential power... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 10:01:27 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, the grand jury disagreed. And the trial jury is likely to as well. I mean, half the posters in the thread were saying that this was an AI fake from the deep state. Now that its clear that isn't the case, you guys have moved on to "well, can you prove he was actually showing classified documents since there is no video?" Trump asserted it was actually 'highly confidential' information about a golf course, so we know that is more BS. And now its, "yeah, well, he wasn't formally indicted for this specific indcident, so whats the big deal?" Dude they took over 100 classifed documents from Mar A Lago, and he is only facing charges for a fraction of them. You sure you want to keep going on about how I'm the one being duped? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: But he isn't charged with retaining anything discussed in the audio. If you can't understand how these pieces do not fit together, I can't help you. Well, the grand jury disagreed. And the trial jury is likely to as well. I mean, half the posters in the thread were saying that this was an AI fake from the deep state. Now that its clear that isn't the case, you guys have moved on to "well, can you prove he was actually showing classified documents since there is no video?" Trump asserted it was actually 'highly confidential' information about a golf course, so we know that is more BS. And now its, "yeah, well, he wasn't formally indicted for this specific indcident, so whats the big deal?" Dude they took over 100 classifed documents from Mar A Lago, and he is only facing charges for a fraction of them. You sure you want to keep going on about how I'm the one being duped? I'm not sure what to make of your edit even after I responded to this post originally. Here are the facts - 1. You have no idea what was at that table. Trump says there were various newspapers and other inconsequential items, and he was speaking broadly. 2. He is not being charged for mishandling any document at that table. 3. This audio was selectively leaked, without the context of number 2. When you take the emotions out of this, the audio by itself means absolutely nothing. Yet, you kept brushing posters aside who say anything to the contrary, and tell them to "listen to the audio" as if it's some kind of proof, and any other discussion isn't worth your time. Regardless, whether he is guilty or innocent, that audio means absolutely nothing without charging him for a document at that table. As it stands, it's evidence of a crime that doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 10:20:28 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or, when Trump addressed it, he didn't deny any of it. He just said he wasn't actually showing anybody a classified document - he said the "secret" and "highly confidential" plans were actually building plans for a golf course. My dude, you have consistently been wrong for like eight years about everything related to Trump. I remember when you told us all we would be at war in Korea in a matter of weeks. ?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 10:23:27 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My dude, you have consistently been wrong for like eight years about everything related to Trump. I remember when you told us all we would be at war in Korea in a matter of weeks. ?? Um, what?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 10:26:54 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not sure what to make of your edit even after I responded to this post originally. Here are the facts - 1. You have no idea what was at that table. Trump says there were various newspapers and other inconsequential items, and he was speaking broadly. 2. He is not being charged for mishandling any document at that table. 3. This audio was selectively leaked, without the context of number 2. When you take the emotions out of this, the audio by itself means absolutely nothing. Yet, you kept brushing posters aside who say anything to the contrary, and tell them to "listen to the audio" as if it's some kind of proof, and any other discussion isn't worth your time. Regardless, whether he is guilty or innocent, that audio means absolutely nothing without charging him for a document at that table. As it stands, it's evidence of a crime that doesn't exist. Well, that’s like, your opinion man. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 10:33:58 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, that's like, your opinion man. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not sure what to make of your edit even after I responded to this post originally. Here are the facts - 1. You have no idea what was at that table. Trump says there were various newspapers and other inconsequential items, and he was speaking broadly. 2. He is not being charged for mishandling any document at that table. 3. This audio was selectively leaked, without the context of number 2. When you take the emotions out of this, the audio by itself means absolutely nothing. Yet, you kept brushing posters aside who say anything to the contrary, and tell them to "listen to the audio" as if it's some kind of proof, and any other discussion isn't worth your time. Regardless, whether he is guilty or innocent, that audio means absolutely nothing without charging him for a document at that table. As it stands, it's evidence of a crime that doesn't exist. Well, that's like, your opinion man. Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 10:47:51 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol Well, at least I’m happy we can both at least agree the audio isn’t an AI fake, because there were a whole bunch of posters in this thread who were talking trash believing it was exactly that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 11:09:12 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, at least I'm happy we can both at least agree the audio isn't an AI fake, because there were a whole bunch of posters in this thread who were talking trash believing it was exactly that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Lol Well, at least I'm happy we can both at least agree the audio isn't an AI fake, because there were a whole bunch of posters in this thread who were talking trash believing it was exactly that. Yes, we can agree on that. However, Trump is a soundbite machine that is extremely easy to take out of context. Love him or hate him, he's braggadocios and doesn't think or care about how his words can be used against him. I suspect this audio is another example of exactly that. He can be dumb, but he's not stupid. I'd be shocked if he was actually flipping through and passing around classified documents during this recorded interview. I also wouldn't be surprised if the DOJ knows that, and knows this particular piece of evidence isn't going anywhere in the court room, so they are getting their money's worth out of it though the leak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 11:13:14 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, we can agree on that. However, Trump is a soundbite machine that is extremely easy to take out of context. Love him or hate him, he's braggadocios and doesn't think or care about how his words can be used against him. I suspect this audio is another example of exactly that. He can be dumb, but he's not stupid. I'd be shocked if he was actually flipping through and passing around classified documents during this recorded interview. I also wouldn't be surprised if the DOJ knows that, and knows this particular piece of evidence isn't going anywhere in the court room, so they are getting their money's worth out of it though the leak. You certainly might be right. Hopefully the truth all comes out at trial. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 11:43:47 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I 100% agree that Trump could have declassified any of these documents while he was president. The fact that there's is no specified mechanism means that ANY president can declassify stuff any way they feel like it - there doesn't have to be anything in writing, or any particular form or procedure. That fact is why I believed the accusation that he has classified documents in his possession was bullshit, because he could have declassified them any way he wanted before leaving office. The is precisely why it is so problematic that he is recorded after he left office, explicitly saying that he DIDN'T declassify them. By being recorded saying that, he is basically destroying the otherwise water-tight defense that he de-classified them before leaving office, in whatever way he wanted. That defense would have been 100% sufficient, IMO - but he ruined that by admitting that he did not declassify. Him declassifying them isn't actually a defense to the charges. The only viable defense is that the records were public and/or the records were not related to national defense. This is why the recording was basically a slam dunk case because he explicitly says that the documents are not public and they are from DOD and related to national defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 11:49:13 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But he isn't charged with retaining anything discussed in the audio. If you can't understand how these pieces do not fit together, I can't help you. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Trump previously asserted he held on to no classified information. He is charged with illegal and willful retention of classified information. If you don't see how this audio of him plays right into those charges, I can't help you. But he isn't charged with retaining anything discussed in the audio. If you can't understand how these pieces do not fit together, I can't help you. The law doesn't require the information related to national defense has to be specified. If I steal and willfully retain classified national defense information, record a tape detailing that I stole and retained this information then destroyed the documents I still committed the crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 11:49:56 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Him declassifying them isn't actually a defense to the charges. The only viable defense is that the records were public and/or the records were not related to national defense. This is why the recording was basically a slam dunk case because he explicitly says that the documents are not public and they are from DOD and related to national defense. If it's a slam dunk, why didn't they charge him for those documents? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 11:54:33 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The law doesn't require the information related to national defense has to be specified. If I steal and willfully retain classified national defense information, record a tape detailing that I stole and retained this information then destroyed the documents I still committed the crime. Ok. So which one of the charges brought against him relate to this tape? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2023 11:55:58 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or, when Trump addressed it, he didn't deny any of it. He just said he wasn't actually showing anybody a classified document - he said the "secret" and "highly confidential" plans were actually building plans for a golf course. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In this new age of deepfake technology, anything "leaked" from the corrupt government should be taken with a truckload of salt. Guaranteed it's either made up out of whole cloth, or key context edited out to paint a picture. After the whole Covid scam, how anyone can take the government seriously amazes me. Or, when Trump addressed it, he didn't deny any of it. He just said he wasn't actually showing anybody a classified document - he said the "secret" and "highly confidential" plans were actually building plans for a golf course. Apparently we are to believe that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Pentagon was tasked to draw up architecture plans for a golf course named "attack on Iran" and then presented it to Trump |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2023 12:01:00 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it's a slam dunk, why didn't they charge him for those documents? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Him declassifying them isn't actually a defense to the charges. The only viable defense is that the records were public and/or the records were not related to national defense. This is why the recording was basically a slam dunk case because he explicitly says that the documents are not public and they are from DOD and related to national defense. If it's a slam dunk, why didn't they charge him for those documents? THEY DID |
|
|
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.
