26 Jun 2023 4:06 pm
maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 3:11 pm » wrote: ↑ Typical @golfboy, cannot refute a single one of my statements. NOT. ONE.
1. There is no doubt that simply by the seemingly innocent act of showing a document containing sensitive national security information to his club members at Bedminster, the clown COULD bring harm to the US.
2.Subsection 793(e) does NOT require INTENT. The word is never used in that subsection, whereas it IS used in subsections (a) and (b)
3. sensitive material carelessly piled into Mar-a-Lago bathrooms and ballroom stages, whether or not the clown thought he had "declassified" them does not make them any less a violation of the Espionage Act as codified in 18 U.S.C. ch. 37(18 U.S.C. § 792 et seq.).
Now if you would LIKE to try to refute those three statements, have at it.
Show us this "document".... link us to the audio... waving a document in the air ... not showing it to them...nothing a cross-examination by lawyers could not shoot down in a heart beat... Remember, you are reciting a one side of the issue presented to a grand jury with no opposing representation and cross examination... Yea, just like the Jan 6 select committee..