Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Is Trump going to jail?
Is Trump going to jail?
By Prospero
1 Jun 2023 10:57 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
2 Jun 2023 6:58 pm
2 Jun 2023 6:59 pm
SURE YOU DOMrkelly » 02 Jun 2023, 6:28 pm » wrote: ↑ he said he declassified them in his head
I dont give a ****, but you ever tRumpers crack me up
BUT IT'S YET TO BE CHALLENGED IN COURT.
2 Jun 2023 7:00 pm
YOU NEED MENTAL HELP AS BIDEN DOES.Xavier_Onassis » 02 Jun 2023, 6:58 pm » wrote: ↑ Trump deserves to be locked away in prison.
Ten years should be adequate.
2 Jun 2023 7:05 pm
YOU'RE REQUIRED TO POST YOUR COPY AND PASTE INFORMATION SOURCEProspero » 01 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm » wrote: ↑ Question: Does the Presidential Records Act authorize the president to declassify documents at will, without a formal process, even by the President 'thinking it' (as Trump claimed)?
Answer: No, the Presidential Records Act (PRA) does not authorize the president to declassify documents at will or by simply thinking it. The PRA is a federal law that governs the management and preservation of presidential records generated during a president's time in office. It establishes that presidential records are the property of the United States government and should be preserved and made available to the public after a certain period.
Declassification of documents, on the other hand, falls under the authority of executive orders and other statutes specifically related to classification and declassification. The president does have the authority to declassify certain documents, but this power is typically exercised through established processes and procedures. The specific procedures for declassifying documents can vary depending on the nature of the information, the agencies involved, and the applicable executive orders or statutes.
It is important to note that even though the president has the authority to declassify documents, this authority is not unlimited. There are still considerations of national security, ongoing investigations, and other factors that may restrict or limit the declassification of certain information.
Question: Which law states that it is illegal to remove national defense information documents from their secure locations.?
Answer: This is the Espionage Act of 1917, which encompasses various provisions related to the mishandling, removal, or disclosure of national defense information. Under this act, it is illegal to remove national defense documents from their secure locations without authorization.
Question: What is the DOJ policy regarding prosecuting those who take them inadvertently but who do return them when the government requests them returned? [This is the case with Biden and Pence]
Answer: Regarding the Department of Justice's (DOJ) policy on prosecuting individuals [Biden and Pence] who inadvertently take national defense information but later return it when requested by the government, it ultimately depends on the specific circumstances and facts of each case. Generally, the DOJ considers factors such as intent, willfulness, and the overall impact of the actions [i.e., the DNI damage assessments] when deciding whether to prosecute. In cases where the individual's actions were unintentional, and they promptly return the documents when requested, the DOJ may exercise discretion and determine that prosecution is not warranted. However, this is a decision made on a case-by-case basis.
Question: What is the DOJ Policy regarding prosecuting those who knowingly, wilfully, though with a mistaken understanding of the Presidential Records Act, and use deceptive tactics to avoid returning them when the Government requests them by subpoena? [This is the case with Trump]
Answer: Regarding the DOJ's policy on prosecuting individuals who knowingly and willfully avoid returning national defense documents when requested by subpoena, the DOJ takes a more serious view. If someone knowingly and willfully disregards a subpoena and uses deceptive tactics to avoid returning the documents, they may face criminal charges for obstruction of justice or contempt of court, depending on the specific circumstances. The DOJ generally views such actions as serious offenses, as they undermine the legal process and hinder the government's ability to conduct investigations.
In my view, given recent events surrounding Trump and NDI docs, Trump's goose is cooked.
2 Jun 2023 7:06 pm
WHERE IS THE FRUITCAKES REQUIRED COPY AND PASTE INFORMATION SOURCE?Cannonpointer » 02 Jun 2023, 12:55 am » wrote: ↑ If you read your copy-paste for comprehension, rather than for confirmation, you will see that even if Trump DID break the law - and your copy paste by no means confirms this, - it is virtually certain there will be no trial. Putting the matter before a jury would involve the complexity of convincing that jury that yes, this **** really WAS top secret (Here, look - we'll show you how sensitive these documents are, because 12 average people can be trusted with top secret information).
I very particularly enjoyed this bit of rhetoric: "The president does have the authority to declassify certain documents, but this power is typically exercised through established processes and procedures."
The implicit suggestion that atypical = criminal is downright laughable - but the laughability escapes partisans. They're too engaged by we got him this time.
This snippet is also quite important: "The specific procedures for declassifying documents can vary depending on the nature of the information, the agencies involved, and the applicable executive orders or statutes." Imagine being a prosecutor and having to slow-walk a jury through procedures that "can vary depending on" (a multiplicity of factors) - and then establishing which of those factors came into play in the case at hand, then establishing beyond reasonable doubt to 12 impartial jurors that these documents threatened national security without threatening national security by showing them the offending documents.
Then there is the fact that biden took several times as many, treated them several times more carelessly, and did it when he WASN'T president, and DIDN'T have declassification authority. Your focus on trump's behavior, given that far, far more egregious behavior by biden, removes all doubt of your partisanship.
You got him this time, scooter. You got him this time.
2 Jun 2023 7:08 pm
requiredrighteous » 02 Jun 2023, 7:05 pm » wrote: ↑ YOU'RE REQUIRED TO POST YOUR COPY AND PASTE INFORMATION SOURCE
2 Jun 2023 7:09 pm
BETTER GET THAT LEAKY THING FIXED, SQUIRTBOYSquatchman » 02 Jun 2023, 1:02 am » wrote: ↑ It isn't a question of whether they were classified.
Trump is in trouble for not producing the documents when asked for them. After a year of trying to get them the orange groomer still hadn't gave them up so he got served a warrant and they were retrieved by other means.
If he would have gave them back without obstruction he wouldn't be in trouble.
2 Jun 2023 7:11 pm
YOU'RE A GIVEAWAY, FRUITCAKE.
TALK ABOUT SOKS
Just sayin'
2 Jun 2023 7:12 pm
show me where it is required
2 Jun 2023 7:16 pm
LOOK HARD, PROSPERO
2 Jun 2023 7:17 pm
NHB lil feller
get a helmet
2 Jun 2023 7:22 pm
TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM YOUR UNCONTROLLABLE GISM JUICE, FRUITCAKE. OK PROSPENUS
2 Jun 2023 10:28 pm
We are not bolivia, son. We do not imprison ex presidents. It's low budget. It's third world. It's nonwhite.Prospero » 02 Jun 2023, 5:06 pm » wrote: ↑
You seem to dismiss the possibility of Trump facing legal consequences without providing much evidence or logical reasoning to back up your claim.
I mean, MAYBE, given that we no longer even TRY to hide that we are a kleptocracy run by oligarchs. But even then, we STILL have an anglo-saxon sense of decency that runs through the oligarchy.
Besides that, it is retarded to think a prosecutor can prove the case without showing the documents to the jury. The documents are the proof duh. You can't just pinky swear about the nature of the documents. So in order to bust trump by pretending he violated national security, the prosecutor will have to violate national security. Pretty stupid. It's not what's done.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
2 Jun 2023 11:18 pm
Son? I'm 72. Just sayin'
Now that defies reality. . Prosecutions of the Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc., of leaders in 'first world' (western developed nations) are not that uncommon.We do not imprison ex presidents. It's low budget. It's third world. It's nonwhite.
There are several examples of first world countries that have prosecuted their Presidents or Prime Ministers in the last 50 years. For instance, South Korea has investigated and convicted five former presidents starting in the 1990s. In France, former President Nicolas Sarkozy was sentenced to prison for corruption and influence peddling In Israel, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust
With due respect, Cannonpointer, but your reply presents several potential logical fallacies, weak arguments, and vague comments. To wit:I mean, MAYBE, given that we no longer even TRY to hide that we are a kleptocracy run by oligarchs. But even then, we STILL have an anglo-saxon sense of decency that runs through the oligarchy.
Besides that, it is retarded to think a prosecutor can prove the case without showing the documents to the jury. The documents are the proof duh. You can't just pinky swear about the nature of the documents. So in order to bust trump by pretending he violated national security, the prosecutor will have to violate national security. Pretty stupid. It's not what's done.
- Ad Hominem Fallacy: You resort to this fallacy when you use the term "retarded" to dismiss the argument presented. Instead of engaging with the points directly, you resort to a derogatory term.
- Appeal to Tradition: You imply that because something has never been done in the past, like prosecuting an ex-president, it shouldn't be done now. This viewpoint doesn't account for potential changes in societal values, conditions, or our understanding of the law.
- Cultural Stereotyping: Your comments about Bolivia, the Third World, and "nonwhite" societies imprisoning ex-presidents are irrelevant to the argument at hand and exhibit cultural stereotyping. The debate should focus on whether a potential legal violation has occurred, regardless of what other countries do.
- Straw Man Fallacy: When you claim that the argument is about "busting Trump by pretending he violated national security," you misrepresent the original argument, creating a straw man. The argument presented is not about "pretending" but revolves around the potential legal implications of mishandling classified documents.
- Assuming a False Dilemma: You insist that the case can only be proven by showing the documents to the jury, implying this would violate national security. This perspective overlooks the various mechanisms in legal proceedings for dealing with sensitive information, such as closed hearings, or the use of declassified summaries and excerpts. The choice isn't binary between maintaining national security and prosecuting a case.
- Lack of Evidential Support: Your claim about an "anglo-saxon sense of decency that runs through the oligarchy" is vague and lacks clear, supporting evidence.
2 Jun 2023 11:30 pm
When I do, I ALWAYS put them in quotes or italics, and either link to, or name the source.righteous » 02 Jun 2023, 7:05 pm » wrote: ↑ YOU'RE REQUIRED TO POST YOUR COPY AND PASTE INFORMATION SOURCE
IF I don't, then the reply is based on my research. FYI, I'm a seasoned writer, essayist ( and I must remain anonymous) and my writing tends to look like copy and pasted text.
I also use AI as a research tool, but it's output is public domain and not quotable. If I copy and paste any AI text, more often than not, I rewrite it to my own words. If the data is wrong, prove me wrong, that's the point of debate. My whole point of being on this forum is to research the efficacy of AI in a debate forum setting. Is that acceptable to the rules? If not. I will leave this forum.
2 Jun 2023 11:49 pm
Please substantiate that 'Biden sneaked documents out and let everyone access them'.Cannonpointer » 02 Jun 2023, 5:09 pm » wrote: ↑ As opposed to biden sneaking them out and letting anyone and everyone access them?
3 Jun 2023 12:21 am
If he failed to memorialize the declassifications and follow EO dictated protocols as President, then,, as a private citizen, if challenged on this point, he will need to prove that he declassified the docs. Given that he didn't follow protocols, which would provide the proof needed, say, in a court of law, they are effectively still classified. The point is, he, as a private citizen, cannot claim they were declassified when he was president if he can't prove it (should he ever need to).ConsRule » 02 Jun 2023, 6:20 pm » wrote: ↑ If he declassified them as President, they stay declassified after he leaves office.
This is the whole point of following protocols,so that everyone in the intel community will know and the courts, as well, should it be a point of legal contention.
I contend otherwise, per 10 CFR § 1045.155 - How is matter marked as containing RD, FRD, or TFNI declassified? | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)Yes, he can. If you contend otherwise, provide a cite.
Summarized here: Government Classification and the Mar-a-Lago Documents | Brennan Center for Justice
See aboveExcept for Congress, any "issuing authority works for the President.
Also note that in the case of being prosecuted for violation of the Espionage act, such does not depend on any classification regime. DNI Damage assessments are more likely to be focused on.
3 Jun 2023 1:16 am
If they were not uncommon, you'd not signal desperation by invoking south korea. What's next - Uraguay?Prospero » 02 Jun 2023, 11:18 pm » wrote: ↑ Son? I'm 72. Just sayin'
Now that defies reality. . Prosecutions of the Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc., of leaders in 'first world' (western developed nations) are not that uncommon.
Sarkozy got a year on house arrest. The French ARE first world - but not representative of the anglo-saxon ethic to which I referred. In the case of nutsinyoohoo, he's still running the show. The indictment means ****. Spare me fluff and korean jabber.Prospero » 02 Jun 2023, 11:18 pm » wrote: ↑ There are several examples of first world countries that have prosecuted their Presidents or Prime Ministers in the last 50 years. For instance, South Korea has investigated and convicted five former presidents starting in the 1990s. In France, former President Nicolas Sarkozy was sentenced to prison for corruption and influence peddling In Israel, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust
I will grant that the anglo-saxon ethic on which my off-the-cuff argument relied is a TAD watered down on these shores, these days. But imprisoning former leaders is a thing which has never been done in America. What you are pretending has precedent hasn't.
Hey, wait. You could use jefferon davis!
Well, let us not rob the matter of context, shall we? You commit the following three GROSS errors:Prospero » 02 Jun 2023, 11:18 pm » wrote: ↑ With due respect, Cannonpointer, but your reply presents several potential logical fallacies, weak arguments, and vague comments.
1. You strain at a gnat in the case of trump's behavior, while swallowing an elephant as regards Biden's far more egregious behavior in the matter of handling classified material. More importantly, you run other men's talking points like a cheap suit. This signals you're a not a thinker - just a regurgitator with no standing to demand etiquette from his/her/zim's betters.
2. You run another hackneyed "we got him this time" to an exhausted, eye-rolling audience. I'm sure you've got him this time.
3. You assume anyone but you considers the topic worth arguing. I found it barely worth an ad hom and a dismissal. Do you think I care whether trump goes to jail? Indeed, I would celebrate the highly unlikely event, as it would signal a new low for a country that desperately needs to hit bottom.
What I would have you take away from my response is this: If you want a debate according to hoyle, stop being a colossal bore and pick a topic worth debating. Another mouthy jackass running other men's ideas about a political soap opera doesn't merit. Our opinions - yours and mine - about whether they've "got him this time" will have no bearing on whether they get him this time. So the entire conversation is masturbatory and extremely shopworn. Every few months you idiots have him this time - and HAVE had since 2016.
Argue an issue worth my time - gender confusion, climate change, states' rights, the authority of governments to extort the public into taking experimental vaccines - SOMETHING that doesn't involve speculations from talking heads about a seven year old roadrunner cartoon STEEPED in effeminate hysteria.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
3 Jun 2023 1:30 am
I will not lower myself to proving the sky is blue to a sok who is wilfully ignorant and committed to remaining so.Prospero » 02 Jun 2023, 11:49 pm » wrote: ↑ Please substantiate that 'Biden sneaked documents out and let everyone access them'.
I simply do not care enough about this dead-horse topic to try to change your feigned opinion, and I do not believe that my proving what you ask would elucidate the matter for anyone reading, you inclusive. Just as Iam convinced you are, virtually everyone viewing this is well aware that biden mishandled classified documents in a far more egregious manner than did trump.
I will not bother to dignify your position with the google search your false pretense does not merit.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
3 Jun 2023 1:33 am
You can AI yourself blue in the face, son of 72 years. That you put yourself forward as a researcher and pretend to be unaware of biden's classified material scandals (plural) casts an even greater shadow on your masturbatory purpose here.Prospero » 02 Jun 2023, 11:30 pm » wrote: ↑ When I do, I ALWAYS put them in quotes or italics, and either link to, or name the source.
IF I don't, then the reply is based on my research. FYI, I'm a seasoned writer, essayist ( and I must remain anonymous) and my writing tends to look like copy and pasted text.
I also use AI as a research tool, but it's output is public domain and not quotable. If I copy and paste any AI text, more often than not, I rewrite it to my own words. If the data is wrong, prove me wrong, that's the point of debate. My whole point of being on this forum is to research the efficacy of AI in a debate forum setting. Is that acceptable to the rules? If not. I will leave this forum.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
Who is online
In total there are 5729 users online :: 8 registered, 16 bots, and 5705 guests
Bots: NING, Adsbot, okhttp, proximic, ADmantX, MicroMessenger, Pinterest, facebookexternalhit, YandexBot, Applebot, Googlebot, Baiduspider, Mediapartners-Google, CriteoBot, bingbot, curl/7