User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 9:35:42 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Unless it’s still national defense information, and the government asks it back. This has been explained several times. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: PRA has nothing to do with preventing a President from retaining any type of document. It is about preserving the records for posterity. A President may keep copies for reference. Unless it’s still national defense information, and the government asks it back. This has been explained several times. But only if the agency asking for it back is entitled to it. That too has been explained many times. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 9:37:16 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I’m an ass and full of sarcasm often, no doubt. But there seem to be fewer and fewer posters capable of substantive conversations, so it happens. Post the actual law, cite the indictment, link to an actual Trump quote in perfect context… and the GD tards ask you how often you watch The View. All while Truth Social and YouTube tell them what to think. Whatever. And calling people tards is sure way to engage in a substantive conversation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 9:37:26 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Very well: You. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: No “principled conservative” would EVER support the Lawfare campaign bring waged by the Left against Trump. try this.... support your statement Very well: You. This was beautiful and can't be allowed to fall through he cracks unnoticed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 10:20:50 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I’m an ass and full of sarcasm often, no doubt. But there seem to be fewer and fewer posters capable of substantive conversations, so it happens. Post the actual law, cite the indictment, link to an actual Trump quote in perfect context… and the GD tards ask you how often you watch The View. All while Truth Social and YouTube tell them what to think. Whatever. Parroting MSNBC talking points for idiots is far from a substantive conversation. Avoiding the topic of the thread, "US Judge Receptive to Trump Documents Claims in Warning Sign for Prosecutors," does not constitute a substantive conversation. Consistently lying by omission is also not a substantive conversation. Instead of litigating this case, tell us why Judge Cannon is considering the defense's motions and what the implications are for the case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 10:30:12 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Was it really a threat? Not likely, but we don’t know. Did Trump break the law? Probably. Should Biden have faced similar charges? That depends. He certainly mishandled classified information, no doubt. But while he wasn’t charged for it, neither was Trump. Trump’s charges were all his refusal to cooperate and obstruction attempts when the government asked for its shit back. Frankly I’d be fine if the both died in prison. Hillary Clinton can join them. Along with Obama, Holder, and 95% of Congress. This is a fair statement….. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 10:41:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: nu3gawhat]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: This is a fair statement….. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Was it really a threat? Not likely, but we don’t know. Did Trump break the law? Probably. Should Biden have faced similar charges? That depends. He certainly mishandled classified information, no doubt. But while he wasn’t charged for it, neither was Trump. Trump’s charges were all his refusal to cooperate and obstruction attempts when the government asked for its shit back. Frankly I’d be fine if the both died in prison. Hillary Clinton can join them. Along with Obama, Holder, and 95% of Congress. This is a fair statement….. Not really. At least some of Bidens docs were STOLEN out of a SCIF. Then you have the added question of why he was laundering millions of dollars from foreign governments. Where as, Biden sent the FBI etc to create a process crime with Trump. In which they are bypassing both declassification authority and the presidential records act, to make their alligations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 1:00:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Right now, we are OBVIOUSLY seeing a Lawfare campaign being orchestrated by the Left. This is undeniable to anyone with an ounce of integrity. Per your question: Yes, there exists a category of serious criminal cases in this universe that fall outside of this current Lawfare campaign. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Your slip is showing. ....those danged principled conservatives keep showing their colors, raising unpleasant facts and ruining the GD narrative.... "who wants facts or needs principles anyway." No “principled conservative” would EVER support the Lawfare campaign being waged by the Left against Trump. I'm curious--is there a "seriousness of the crime" threshold for you where you would no longer consider it "lawfare campaign being waged by the left"? I'm not interested in engaging the question of whether that's really what this is right now, because it's a pointless argument that will never be resolved. But since you have obviously drawn that conclusion, I'd like to know what it would take for you to draw a different conclusion. Right now, we are OBVIOUSLY seeing a Lawfare campaign being orchestrated by the Left. This is undeniable to anyone with an ounce of integrity. Per your question: Yes, there exists a category of serious criminal cases in this universe that fall outside of this current Lawfare campaign. So where's your line? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 1:42:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Running from a challenge... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Very well: You. Running from a challenge... You misunderstand the answer? |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 1:45:52 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AdLucem: This is a fair statement….. Except you don't understand "fair". Sad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 1:47:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: So where's your line? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By CMiller: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By AdLucem: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Your slip is showing. ....those danged principled conservatives keep showing their colors, raising unpleasant facts and ruining the GD narrative.... "who wants facts or needs principles anyway." No “principled conservative” would EVER support the Lawfare campaign being waged by the Left against Trump. I'm curious--is there a "seriousness of the crime" threshold for you where you would no longer consider it "lawfare campaign being waged by the left"? I'm not interested in engaging the question of whether that's really what this is right now, because it's a pointless argument that will never be resolved. But since you have obviously drawn that conclusion, I'd like to know what it would take for you to draw a different conclusion. Right now, we are OBVIOUSLY seeing a Lawfare campaign being orchestrated by the Left. This is undeniable to anyone with an ounce of integrity. Per your question: Yes, there exists a category of serious criminal cases in this universe that fall outside of this current Lawfare campaign. So where's your line? That's like asking about soccer: when is it a penalty and when is it a "flop"? We all know it when we see it -unless it's YOUR team doing it. But even then, you know the truth, but you won't admit it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:21:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Says the Constitution. Well, good thing we’re not taking about a president then. Trump left office before the actions which resulted in the charges. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:23:27 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: It is a derivative of Raylan Givens statement on Justified: “If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.” Sure. But that has nothing to do with being right or wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:26:04 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Sure. But that has nothing to do with being right or wrong. Some times it does though. Sometimes you are the only person right, but often if everyone tells you that you are wrong, it may be your ego that prevents you from accepting that you are in fact the one who is wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:26:46 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner:  I'm laughing at the possibility you actually believe this. You drop it in to threads almost as if it's on a schedule. You ARE bright enough to know there is zero chance of it happening, so writing it out has no penalty. God, forgive me for giving an ounce of credibility and optimism to Trump on the 2016 campaign trail. What a fool I was. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:30:40 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: God, forgive me for giving an ounce of credibility and optimism to Trump on the 2016 campaign trail. What a fool I was. He proved a much better POTUS than I expected. I think most actual conservatives or libertarians would agree with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:32:57 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: Some times it does though. Sometimes you are the only person right, but often if everyone tells you that you are wrong, it may be your ego that prevents you from accepting that you are in fact the one who is wrong. Half the posters in this thread couldn’t even be bothered to read the charge sheet, and still think the charges are for “mishandling classified information”. They are spun up over irrelevancies like cover sheets, and believe a president can claim 2 years after the fact he declassified something in his mind without ever telling anybody at the time. And that foreign military information, daily intelligence briefings, and nuclear information are somehow “personal documents” just because a president says so. If disagreeing with that nonsense against the grain of the echo chamber makes me an ass in your mind, I’m fine with that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:34:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Half the posters in this thread couldn’t even be bothered to read the charge sheet, and still think the charges are for “mishandling classified information”. They are spun up over irrelevancies like cover sheets, and believe a president can claim 2 years after the fact he declassified something in his mind without ever telling anybody at the time. And that foreign military information, daily intelligence briefings, and nuclear information are somehow “personal documents” just because a president says so. If disagreeing with that nonsense against the grain of the echo chamber makes me an ass in your mind, I’m fine with that. What EXACT information is in question? Do you know? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:35:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: God, forgive me for giving an ounce of credibility and optimism to Trump on the 2016 campaign trail. What a fool I was. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner: I'm laughing at the possibility you actually believe this. You drop it in to threads almost as if it's on a schedule. You ARE bright enough to know there is zero chance of it happening, so writing it out has no penalty. God, forgive me for giving an ounce of credibility and optimism to Trump on the 2016 campaign trail. What a fool I was. I have news for you; You still are. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:42:58 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By apexcrusade: I have news for you; You still are. Yep. Taking time to read. Things like the actual federal statute and court filings. And then coming up with an opinion that disagrees with Truth Social. So foolish. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:48:18 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, good thing we’re not taking about a president then. Trump left office before the actions which resulted in the charges. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Says the Constitution. Well, good thing we’re not taking about a president then. Trump left office before the actions which resulted in the charges. Not true. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:51:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Low_Country]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:52:53 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: 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. What documents exactly? |
|
|
|
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:53:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: What documents exactly? Just trust them bro ! Top men ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:55:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: What documents exactly? I don’t know why this is so complicated. Start on page 32. https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Trump-Nauta-De-Oliveira-23-80101.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 2:58:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: mooreshawnm]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I don’t know why this is so complicated. Start on page 32. https://www.justice.gov/storage/US-v-Trump-Nauta-De-Oliveira-23-80101.pdf It isn't complicated. Just tell me what exact documents are in question. ETA: your link only has vague descriptions of docs from a proven compromised agency. Do you know what the documents actually are? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:02:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: It isn't complicated. Just tell me what exact documents are in question. ETA: your link only has vague descriptions of docs from a proven compromised agency. Do you know what the documents actually are? Man, it’s almost like the entire country doesn’t hold a TS/SCI clearance with every single read-in ever, and a descriptive summary is the only thing appropriate for a publicly released indictment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:04:04 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Man, it’s almost like the entire country doesn’t hold a TS/SCI clearance with every single read-in ever, and a descriptive summary is the only thing appropriate for a publicly released indictment. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mooreshawnm: It isn't complicated. Just tell me what exact documents are in question. ETA: your link only has vague descriptions of docs from a proven compromised agency. Do you know what the documents actually are? Man, it’s almost like the entire country doesn’t hold a TS/SCI clearance with every single read-in ever, and a descriptive summary is the only thing appropriate for a publicly released indictment. So you don't. Understood. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:04:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:09:01 PM EDT
[#29]
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. I can’t wait to hear the mental gymnastics Trump’s defense is going to have to argue trying to convince a jury or panel of judges that foreign military capabilities, a presidential daily intel brief, or nuclear information is not national defense information. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:11:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: I can’t wait to hear the mental gymnastics Trump’s defense is going to have to argue trying to convince a jury or panel of judges that foreign military capabilities, a presidential daily intel brief, or nuclear information is not national defense information. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally 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. I can’t wait to hear the mental gymnastics Trump’s defense is going to have to argue trying to convince a jury or panel of judges that foreign military capabilities, a presidential daily intel brief, or nuclear information is not national defense information. There are no "metal gymnastics" required. He isn't required to explain himself to you or anyone else. He is the final authority on these matters. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:11:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: So you don't. Understood. Well, if you’d get outside of MAGA media and “Jack Smith’s case is falling apart”, you’d understand this is one of the main reasons for the rescheduling of the trial. There are specific laws and rules that must be complied with when a trial deals with classified information and a jury not cleared to see it. And there was more time needed to ensure it was all going to be complied with. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:12:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, if you’d get outside of MAGA media and “Jack Smith’s case is falling apart”, you’d understand this is one of the main reasons for the rescheduling of the trial. There are specific laws and rules that must be complied with when a trial deals with classified information and a jury not cleared to see it. And there was more time needed to ensure it was all going to be complied with. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By mooreshawnm: So you don't. Understood. Well, if you’d get outside of MAGA media and “Jack Smith’s case is falling apart”, you’d understand this is one of the main reasons for the rescheduling of the trial. There are specific laws and rules that must be complied with when a trial deals with classified information and a jury not cleared to see it. And there was more time needed to ensure it was all going to be complied with. Was the Grand Jury cleared to see it? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:13:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: There are no "metal gymnastics" required. He isn't required to explain himself to you or anyone else. He is the final authority on these matters. And yet, he finds himself as a criminal defendant for exactly that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:16:35 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: And yet, he finds himself as a criminal defendant for exactly that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: There are no "metal gymnastics" required. He isn't required to explain himself to you or anyone else. He is the final authority on these matters. And yet, he finds himself as a criminal defendant for exactly that. No. He finds himself as a criminal defendant because of Democrats. That and nothing more. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:23:03 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: And yet, he finds himself as a criminal defendant for exactly that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: There are no "metal gymnastics" required. He isn't required to explain himself to you or anyone else. He is the final authority on these matters. And yet, he finds himself as a criminal defendant for exactly that. And it is pretty obvious that the case is completely political in nature and not one based on the rule of law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:32:04 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: And it is pretty obvious that the case is completely political in nature and not one based on the rule of law. The rule of law. I’ll link the law below. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 And here is the applicable part: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or An individual in lawful possession of national security information, has to give it back when asked. Seems pretty clear cut. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:34:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: The rule of law. I’ll link the law below. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 And here is the applicable part: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or An individual in lawful possession of national security information, has to give it back when asked. Seems pretty clear cut. https://www.myarmypublications.com/images/FM71.pdf |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:35:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: The rule of law. I’ll link the law below. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 And here is the applicable part: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or An individual in lawful possession of national security information, has to give it back when asked. Seems pretty clear cut. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: And it is pretty obvious that the case is completely political in nature and not one based on the rule of law. The rule of law. I’ll link the law below. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 And here is the applicable part: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or An individual in lawful possession of national security information, has to give it back when asked. Seems pretty clear cut. If the government is entitled to receive it. They aren't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:35:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: LordsOfDiscipline]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, if you’d get outside of MAGA media and “Jack Smith’s case is falling apart”, you’d understand this is one of the main reasons for the rescheduling of the trial. There are specific laws and rules that must be complied with when a trial deals with classified information and a jury not cleared to see it. And there was more time needed to ensure it was all going to be complied with. Gentle reminder the title of this thread: "US Judge Receptive to Trump Documents Claims in Warning Sign for Prosecutors" Bravo! Highlighted is the reason Jack Smith's case is falling apart and admitting it is a brave step. If only you were outside of the MSNBC echo chamber only then sanity may revisit and relieve your tortured fever dream. Good luck Champ. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:38:16 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: The rule of law. I’ll link the law below. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 And here is the applicable part: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or An individual in lawful possession of national security information, has to give it back when asked. Seems pretty clear cut. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: And it is pretty obvious that the case is completely political in nature and not one based on the rule of law. The rule of law. I’ll link the law below. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 And here is the applicable part: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or An individual in lawful possession of national security information, has to give it back when asked. Seems pretty clear cut. It’s not national security information if he declassified it, and it was something he did not declassify prior to leaving, that gets to the other question I asked about who is sending him classified information post his term in office I will concede the only ruling to date on his ability to determine what is his and is not his, is a non-SCOTUS decision. As such the current precedent may that he get to decide may not remain after a SCOTUS review, but current precedent is on his side. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:39:21 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: The rule of law. I’ll link the law below. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 And here is the applicable part: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or An individual in lawful possession of national security information, has to give it back when asked. Seems pretty clear cut. It's hilarious you invoke "rule of law", since that's the actual target you deep state types have in your sights. |
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:40:43 PM EDT
[#42]
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. There are also the documents the government had in storage and sent to Mar a Lago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:47:38 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Half the posters in this thread couldn’t even be bothered to read the charge sheet, and still think the charges are for “mishandling classified information”. They are spun up over irrelevancies like cover sheets, and believe a president can claim 2 years after the fact he declassified something in his mind without ever telling anybody at the time. And that foreign military information, daily intelligence briefings, and nuclear information are somehow “personal documents” just because a president says so. If disagreeing with that nonsense against the grain of the echo chamber makes me an ass in your mind, I’m fine with that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: Some times it does though. Sometimes you are the only person right, but often if everyone tells you that you are wrong, it may be your ego that prevents you from accepting that you are in fact the one who is wrong. Half the posters in this thread couldn’t even be bothered to read the charge sheet, and still think the charges are for “mishandling classified information”. They are spun up over irrelevancies like cover sheets, and believe a president can claim 2 years after the fact he declassified something in his mind without ever telling anybody at the time. And that foreign military information, daily intelligence briefings, and nuclear information are somehow “personal documents” just because a president says so. If disagreeing with that nonsense against the grain of the echo chamber makes me an ass in your mind, I’m fine with that. I'm not sure you are as bright as I just gave you credit for. Neither of your points I hilited are accurate representations of the conversations I have read on these topics. You belittle the answers you have gotten as they don't fit your biases. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:48:40 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: The rule of law. I’ll link the law below. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 And here is the applicable part: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or An individual in lawful possession of national security information, has to give it back when asked. Seems pretty clear cut. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By R0N: And it is pretty obvious that the case is completely political in nature and not one based on the rule of law. The rule of law. I’ll link the law below. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 And here is the applicable part: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or An individual in lawful possession of national security information, has to give it back when asked. Seems pretty clear cut. Let's say that when President Trump was in office, he came to visit your work and was briefed on a highly classified SAP... He decides that to declassify your presentation and take it with him to Mar a Lago to share with his good friend President Macron of France, who was invited for the weekend. You, naturally, are OUTRAGED! You disagree vehemently! To whom do you appeal? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:50:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Yep. Taking time to read. Things like the actual federal statute and court filings. And then coming up with an opinion that disagrees with Truth Social. So foolish. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By apexcrusade: I have news for you; You still are. Yep. Taking time to read. Things like the actual federal statute and court filings. And then coming up with an opinion that disagrees with Truth Social. So foolish. As foolish as the statement hilited? I have never clicked on or opened a link to Truth Social or read a post there. You argue with people who have articulated their dislike of Trump but support the constitution and push back against lawfare, then tar them with this kind of petty statement. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:53:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: I'm not sure you are as bright as I just gave you credit for. Neither of your points I hilited are accurate representations of the conversations I have read on these topics. You belittle the answers you have gotten as they don't fit your biases. Don’t know what to tell ya. There is a 20 page thread going about the cover sheets. And one of the “SMEs” here has articulated that exact second point. That an ex-president can claim 2 years after leaving office that he actually did blanket declassify things, despite not telling anybody, taking any associated actions, and his entire administration commenting on the absurdity of such a thing. But be careful, because it sounds like you are close to agreeing with me on the silliness of such things, and we can’t have that. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:56:16 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Let's say that when President Trump was in office, he came to visit your work and was briefed on a highly classified SAP... He decides that to declassify your presentation and take it with him to Mar a Lago to share with his good friend President Macron of France, who was invited for the weekend. You, naturally, are OUTRAGED! You disagree vehemently! To whom do you appeal? That wouldn’t outrage me at all. Now, if a former president shared the same information to a news reporter (not the president of a NATO ally) 2 years after leaving office, bragging about how it’s still classified, that’s a different story. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 3:57:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Don’t know what to tell ya. There is a 20 page thread going about the cover sheets. And one of the “SMEs” here has articulated that exact second point. That an ex-president can claim 2 years after leaving office that he actually did blanket declassify things, despite not telling anybody, taking any associated actions, and his entire administration commenting on the absurdity of such a thing. But be careful, because it sounds like you are close to agreeing with me on the silliness of such things, and we can’t have that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner: I'm not sure you are as bright as I just gave you credit for. Neither of your points I hilited are accurate representations of the conversations I have read on these topics. You belittle the answers you have gotten as they don't fit your biases. Don’t know what to tell ya. There is a 20 page thread going about the cover sheets. And one of the “SMEs” here has articulated that exact second point. That an ex-president can claim 2 years after leaving office that he actually did blanket declassify things, despite not telling anybody, taking any associated actions, and his entire administration commenting on the absurdity of such a thing. But be careful, because it sounds like you are close to agreeing with me on the silliness of such things, and we can’t have that. A President can "declassify" documents in the most "silly" way imaginable. Your opinion that "silliness" is illegal, or that the President is not allowed to employ "silly" methods is ten times "sillier" that the President's silliness. There is NOTHING that can tell the President HOW he must declassify documents or HOW he must document those actions, or HOW he communicates those actions to others. 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 3:59:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: That wouldn’t outrage me at all. Now, if a former president shared the same information to a news reporter (not the president of a NATO ally) 2 years after leaving office, bragging about how it’s still classified, that’s a different story. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Let's say that when President Trump was in office, he came to visit your work and was briefed on a highly classified SAP... He decides that to declassify your presentation and take it with him to Mar a Lago to share with his good friend President Macron of France, who was invited for the weekend. You, naturally, are OUTRAGED! You disagree vehemently! To whom do you appeal? That wouldn’t outrage me at all. Now, if a former president shared the same information to a news reporter (not the president of a NATO ally) 2 years after leaving office, bragging about how it’s still classified, that’s a different story. So, then you agree 100% that a sitting President CAN declassify and share anything he wants, and that there is no higher authority to whom one can appeal to stop him. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2024 4:03:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 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. |
|
|
|
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.
