Liberal Forum

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 1:05 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 1:05 pm

1.  DOJ extends benefit of the doubt to senators and members of the exec branch. If such persons have them, they must agree fully to return the documents and they will be assumed to have acquired them inadvertently.   Their policy is not to prosecute unless there are aggravating circumstances
    such as 'obstruction' and factors which reveal mens rea of willful and deliberate attempt to withhold NDI docs from the government. 

2.  The above does not apply to Biden and Pence, but does apply to Trump.

So you just ADMITTED that Biden is in VIOLATION of the Espionage Act and MUST BE PROSECUTED!! IMPEACHED, INDICTED, AND PUT IN PRISON based on YOUR VERY OWN CLAIMS!!

**** OFF. You are heading WAY IN FRONT of that IGNORE BUTTON!

Prospero » 01 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023, 10:57 pm

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)?


 

The Presidential Records Act does not lay out a process required to declassify documents. 
Trump could declassify anything he wanted, in any way he wanted. 

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 2:22 pm

Okay, hot shot. There is no friend of the LGBTQ community more than me.  I lived in West Hollywood for 20 years.

Then stop lying that you are an FDR Demcrat, you stupid ***.

I lived at pico and la sienega - kosher canyon. doesn't make me a friend to the doily-hats.    

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 2:22 pm

So, provide evidence of that lie.

You can't, it doesn't exist.  So, on top of phony, you are lying phony.

Gave you a link, retard. Cannot force you to click it.

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 2:22 pm

Republicans call FDR dems 'communists',  so how in holy hell, if you are an FDR dem, call me a 'communist'.?

I had rather thought you smart enough to suss that I used that one sentence, tongue in cheek, to incorporate every fallacy you accused me of. But I get it - AI was doing the accusing, not you. So the lazy **** that relied on AI - and likely did not bother even to READ the copy paste he did not orignate - naturally missed the humor and was stung by being called a "commie."

FFS. Who but retards accuses people of being commies anymore, ya flamboyant pinko?

 
 

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 1:56 am » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 1:56 am

Really?  I support FDR 100%, so that claim makes no sense.

 

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 6:15 am » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 6:15 am

What, are you brain dead?  

Anyone can support someone's policies posthumously. 

what a **** moron.

 

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 6:57 am » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 6:57 am

Many folks on the left say something like 'I'm an FDR democrat".  

What are they saying?  They are saying they support FDR's policies.

Dear retarded man,

FDR persecuted gays as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). He literally set honey traps targeting them, and when questioned why, he responded: “I did it for the uplift of humanity and the Navy.” After the sting rounded up a score of gay men, he put them in solitary for more than a hundred days before they were officially charged with sodomy and “scandalous conduct.”

And let me save you some embarrassment. He did NOT cool off on the topic during his presidency. You know - the presidency whose policies you claim to support, research guy?

Thank you for standing with me against the scourge of sodomy, fruitcake.       

Oh - here's that link, Destroyer of Sodomites: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/fdrs ... ent-sting/
 

Cannonpointer » 06 Jun 2023, 6:21 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 6:21 pm

Then stop lying that you are an FDR Demcrat, you stupid ***.
 

I am, and I know a lot of FDR dems, and you are most certainly not one. You have not written anything in any of your replies that remotely comes anywhere near the ballpark of being an FDR Democrat.  All you do is rant, rave, and call names. What kind of FDR Dem does that? Not any kind that I know.  

I lived at pico and la sienega - kosher canyon. doesn't make me a friend to the doily-hats.    

You live in L.A.  Pico and La Cienega (and you can't spell it?  )  is close to Beverly Hills.  So you are an FDR dem, and you can't spell?  You are a phony.  

Gave you a link, retard. Cannot force you to click it.

What link?   

I had rather thought you smart enough to suss that I used that one sentence, tongue in cheek, to incorporate every fallacy you accused me of. But I get it - AI was doing the accusing, not you. So the lazy **** that relied on AI - and likely did not bother even to READ the copy paste he did not orignate - naturally missed the humor and was stung by being called a "commie."

You are utterly the dumbest democrat I've ever encountered.  You are doorknob dumb.  

FFS. Who but retards accuses people of being commies anymore, ya flamboyant pinko?

You're a phony, a troll.  You haven't the slightest clue as to what it means to be an FDR Democrat.  

You haven't said a gawddamn thing of substance since I've encountered you on this forum. 

All you have done is rant and rave and say NOTHING, 

You are a PHONY.  


 


 

Cannonpointer » 06 Jun 2023, 6:28 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 6:28 pm

Dear retarded man,

FDR persecuted gays as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). He literally set honey traps targeting them, and when questioned why, he responded: “I did it for the uplift of humanity and the Navy.” After the sting rounded up a score of gay men, he put them in solitary for more than a hundred days before they were officially charged with sodomy and “scandalous conduct.”

You base this on what evidence?   FDR, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy did coincide with the Newport Sex Scandal in 1919, which involved entrapment of men alleged to be engaging in homosexual activities. However, characterizing FDR as personally persecuting gays might be a stretch - historical sources suggest that he approved the inquiry but was not directly involved in its execution. You'll need to source this (okay, I see your link, I'll check it out)  and let me look at what you are basing your conclusions on.  But you have to factor in the prevailing attitudes at the time.  You appear to be guilty of a phenomenon called "presentism." It's a historical fallacy where one interprets past events in terms of modern values and concepts. Presentism can lead to anachronistic misunderstandings of historical contexts and behaviors, because it fails to consider the distinct societal norms, beliefs, and environmental conditions of the past. 

And let me save you some embarrassment. He did NOT cool off on the topic during his presidency. You know - the presidency whose policies you claim to support, research guy?

Thank you for standing with me against the scourge of sodomy, fruitcake.       

Oh - here's that link, Destroyer of Sodomites: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/fdrs ... ent-sting/

You base your entire opinion on a Podcast?  Your scholarship is piss poor.  

Your incessant attempts ot posturing, ad homs, patronizing, and condescension, lack of scholarship self puffery demonstrate clearly you are a novice in the art of debate. 

And then you claim to be an FDR dem and what do you do?  You attack FDR, what he did before he was president, based on a podcast. 

You sure as hell are no FDR Dem.  

In the mean time,

Get an education.  
 
 

golfboy » 06 Jun 2023, 5:01 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 5:01 pm

The Presidential Records Act does not lay out a process required to declassify documents. 
Trump could declassify anything he wanted, in any way he wanted.

Dear Golfboy. 

 The framework for the classification and declassification of national security information is Executive Order 13526, issued by President Barack Obama in 2009. The order sets forth the criteria for classifying information, the standards for protecting classified information, and the procedures for reviewing and declassifying information.

Moreover, Trump is claiming he declassified the documents he stole 'with his mind'.  That might be credible, but he made that claim AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. 

Since, declassification by thought leaves no process of memorialization, there is no way to prove that he did, in fact, declassify documents. Because of that fact, the law will continue to recognize the documents a classified, since he can't make a retrospective claim as a private citizen who is no longer president. 

Moreover, several staff, including John Bolton and Bill Barr will testify that he did NOT declassify anything in the documents he stole. 

Additionally, there is a new tape in which he is holding a classified document, and telling the people he was talking to that he can't tell them what it contains because it is classified, and the tape was made while he was a private citizen, which proves he did not declassify that document.  Well, if he claims he classified all the documents, why is he on tape telling folks he can't tell them what the document contains if he had declassified it? If what he said was true, he could have declassified it right then and there and then released the information.  But, he didn't.  

However, your implication is moot because Trump will likely be charged with a violation of the Espionage Act, which does not depend on any classification regime. 
 
Now then, is there any other thing you'd like to discuss?   
 
 

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 6:56 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 6:56 pm

Dear Golfboy. 

 The framework for the classification and declassification of national security information is Executive Order 13526, issued by President Barack Obama in 2009. The order sets forth the criteria for classifying information, the standards for protecting classified information, and the procedures for reviewing and declassifying information.

However, your implication is moot because Trump will likely be charged with a violation of the Espionage Act, which does not depend on any classification regime.

EO 13526 is meaningless.  There is no law that defines a process for a President to declassify documents. 
We went through this repeatedly with Trump, like when he told the Russians in the Oval "classified" information.
Liberals like you lost your minds, and then it was explained to you, when Trump told them the information, that declassified it. 

Him sending documents to his house, declassified them. 

 

golfboy » 06 Jun 2023, 7:00 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 7:00 pm

EO 13526 is meaningless.  There is no law that defines a process for a President to declassify documents. 
We went through this repeatedly with Trump, like when he told the Russians in the Oval "classified" information.
Liberals like you lost your minds, and then it was explained to you, when Trump told them the information, that declassified it. 

Him sending documents to his house, declassified them.

He can't claim that he declassified them as a private citizen. He NO LONGER HAS THAT AUTHORITY 

Reread this part: 

Moreover, Trump is claiming he declassified the documents he stole 'with his mind'.  That might be credible, but he made that claim AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. 

Since, declassification by thought leaves no process of memorialization, there is no way to prove that he did, in fact, declassify documents. Because of that fact, the law will continue to recognize the documents a classified, since he can't make a retrospective claim as a private citizen who is no longer president. 

Moreover, several staff, including John Bolton and Bill Barr will testify that he did NOT declassify anything in the documents he stole. 

Additionally, there is a new tape in which he is holding a classified document, and telling the people he was talking to that he can't tell them what it contains because it is classified, and the tape was made while he was a private citizen, which proves he did not declassify that document.  Well, if he claims he classified all the documents, why is he on tape telling folks he can't tell them what the document contains if he had declassified it? If what he said was true, he could have declassified it right then and there and then released the information.  But, he didn't.  

However, your implication is moot because Trump will likely be charged with a violation of the Espionage Act, which does not depend on any classification regime. 
 
Capiche? 

golfboy » 06 Jun 2023, 7:00 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 7:00 pm

EO 13526 is meaningless.  There is no law that defines a process for a President to declassify documents. 
We went through this repeatedly with Trump, like when he told the Russians in the Oval "classified" information.
Liberals like you lost your minds, and then it was explained to you, when Trump told them the information, that declassified it. 

Him sending documents to his house, declassified them.

Trump will likely be charged with a violation of the Espionage Act, which does not depend on any classification regime. 
 
Capiche? 
 

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 7:17 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 7:17 pm

Trump will likely be charged with a violation of the Espionage Act, which does not depend on any classification regime. 
 
Capiche? 

They can charge him with anything they want. 
Proving their charges in court is the actual burden of proof. 

Beekeeper » 06 Jun 2023, 4:56 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 4:56 pm

So you just ADMITTED that Biden is in VIOLATION of the Espionage Act and MUST BE PROSECUTED!! IMPEACHED, INDICTED, AND PUT IN PRISON based on YOUR VERY OWN CLAIMS!!

**** OFF. You are heading WAY IN FRONT of that IGNORE BUTTON!

So, you can't read.  

Go back to school

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 7:14 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 7:14 pm

He can't claim that he declassified them as a private citizen. He NO LONGER HAS THAT AUTHORITY 

He wasn't a private citizen when he had them shipped to Mar A Lago.   He was President.

 

golfboy » 06 Jun 2023, 7:18 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 7:18 pm

They can charge him with anything they want. 
Proving their charges in court is the actual burden of proof.

You're naiveté is cute. 

I guarantee you that if the former president of the united states is indicted, Jack Smith will go above and beyond the threshold of 'BARD"  which is to say, present evidence---beyond a reasonable doubt.  

 

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 7:18 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 7:18 pm

So, you can't read.  

Go back to school

Biden had dozens upon dozens of boxes of classified documents at his home, at Univ of Delaware, even in Chinatown.
And he wasn't President when he stole all those documents.
And his felon son had access to all of it. 

How is that not a crime?
 

golfboy » 06 Jun 2023, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 7:19 pm

He wasn't a private citizen when he had them shipped to Mar A Lago.   He was President.

However, he claimed that he declassified them AFTER he left office. 

Since there is no proof that he did, the law will continue to recognize the documents as classified. 

But, for an Espionage Charge, it won't matter, one way or the other.  DNI damage assessments will carry far more weight, and those assessments also do not depend on classification.  

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 7:24 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 7:24 pm

However, he claimed that he declassified them AFTER he left office. 

Since there is no proof that he did, the law will continue to recognize the documents as classified. 

But, for an Espionage Charge, it won't matter, one way or the other.  DNI damage assessments will carry far more weight, and those assessments also do not depend on classification.

The mere act of sending them to an unclassified place, declassified them. 
Sorry. 

There was no damage to America.
And why would anyone believe a Biden DNI when she's been caught lying about everything?
 
 

golfboy » 06 Jun 2023, 7:21 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 7:21 pm

Biden had dozens upon dozens of boxes of classified documents at his home, at Univ of Delaware, even in Chinatown.
And he wasn't President when he stole all those documents.
And his felon son had access to all of it. 

How is that not a crime?

It's called prosecutorial discretion.  The current DOJ's policy is to give the benefit of the doubt to Senators and Exec Branch personnel who acquire sensitive documents, who routinely take them home (depending on how severe the classification) , that they will not prosecute for mere acquisition, that they will consider that they were acquired inadvertently. so, as long as the individual returns the documents, all is well. Both Biden and Pence cooperated with the governent without incident  That is not the case with Trump. 

But Trump did not do that. He went on TV and claimed he had the right to take them.  He obstructed the governments effort to retrieve them. This is why a search warrant was issued.  

That is why he will be prosecuted and Biden and Pence will not be.  

golfboy » 06 Jun 2023, 7:27 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 7:27 pm

The mere act of sending them to an unclassified place, declassified them. 
Sorry. 
 

That's false Moreover, nothing in the Constitution that mentions that as protocol.

There was no damage to America.

Well have to wait and see what the damage assessments are.  You, me, and no one knows until then.

And why would anyone believe a Biden DNI when she's been caught lying about everything?

I do not engage with loaded questions.  You'll have to substantiate your premise, first.  

Prospero » 06 Jun 2023, 7:29 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2023, 7:29 pm

It's called prosecutorial discretion. 

And that's why no one believes anything you say. 
There is no justice in America anymore. 

Only Republicans are charged with crimes by this biased Department of "Justice".