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
11 Jun 2023 10:45 pm
They've got him this time, goflboy.golfboy » 11 Jun 2023, 9:18 pm » wrote: ↑ Repetition isn't going to make you correct. Ask mainbitch.
They've got him.
Believe me, I feel their pain. I went snipe hunting SEVEN TIMES - in a field known for snipes. Never bagged one.
I accidentally shot my guide, so now, I never WILL bag a snipe. I'm persona non grata with al the snipe hunting guides hereabout. They used to love taking me out - now they run from me.
To add insult to injury, I met a homeless guy who said he finds snipes all the time, just laying around.
It means a lot to these fruitcakes to believe they've got him this time. Just tell them, of course you do, Pookie - of course you do.
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?
11 Jun 2023 10:46 pm
I think you've truly got him this time, pooh bear.Prospero » 11 Jun 2023, 9:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Your *** kicked by the air tight indictement
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 53.3.0.pdf
But be honest. Grant me this much:
Trump would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids.
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?
12 Jun 2023 6:04 am
Well, once was enough, but once isn't enough to penetrate the ignorant skulls of most on the right.golfboy » 11 Jun 2023, 9:18 pm » wrote: ↑ Repetition isn't going to make you correct. Ask mainbitch.
So, repetition might help.
12 Jun 2023 6:07 am
The PRA isn't a criminal code. Duh!
What, me? I nevah.....like you claimed they would, isn't it?
Actually, it doesn't. Read it, sometime.And the espionage act requires they PROVE Trump INTENDED to Harm America.
How are they going to do that?
Nice shot of the clown-in-chief.Maybe they'll introduce this picture as proof:
12 Jun 2023 6:25 am
Prospero » 11 Jun 2023, 9:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Your *** kicked by the air tight indictement
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 53.3.0.pdf
!!............. A Critical Look at Navy v. Egan
A 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Department of the Navy v. Egan has often been interpreted to support broad presidential authority over national security generally and over access to classified information in particular. Along with United States v. Reynolds, Curtiss-Wright, and a few other cases, Egan is regularly cited in support of strong, even unchecked executive authority and judicial deference to executive claims. It has become a cornerstone of national security law as practiced today.
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
12 Jun 2023 6:28 am
A Critical Look at Navy v. EganProspero » 11 Jun 2023, 9:13 pm » wrote: ↑ Now, let's review the facts, sans hyperbole and rant langauge.
During his campaign before the 2016 election, Trump said:
“In my administration, I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.”
"We can't have someone in the Oval Office who doesn't understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified."
Trump admitted that he had documents he didn't classify, and admitted they were secret to persons
without security clearances.
He expressed to his lawyer 'wouldn't it be better if we told them there were no documents?'.
Trump obstructed the govts efforts to retrieve national defense top secret documents.
He hid them from the FBI and his own lawyers.
They were placed in restrooms, shower stalls, open ballrooms and storage rooms.
Over 150 weddings and events have been held ad Mar A Lago since Trump left office.
He revealed them to persons without security clearances.
The indictment, in excruciating detail, reveals the criminal disregard for security the nation's secrets.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 53.3.0.pdf
Such are the aggravated circumstances relating to national defense documents which is the DOJ's policy
is to prosecute.
Neither Pence nor Biden did this. As long as Senators and Exec branch personnel with documents cooperate fully with the govt for their return, DOJ's policy is that they will be given the benefit of the doubt that they were acquired inadvertently. It would require aggravated circumstances to warrant prosecution, as is the case with Trump.
Any other person who committed the aggravated acts Trump committed would have been arrested, book, tried, convicted and incarcerated.
Reality winner got 5 years for just revealing to the public just one document.
We cannot have a commander in chief violating the Espionage Act with the kind of aggravated circumstances that have been committed by Trump.
No magistrate will automatically sign off on a warrant to search the home of the former President of the United States.
Your claim defies logic. when Judges exhibit partisanship, they get smacked down on appeal.
Suck on this:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 53.3.0.pdf
A 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Department of the Navy v. Egan has often been interpreted to support broad presidential authority over national security generally and over access to classified information in particular. Along with United States v. Reynolds, Curtiss-Wright, and a few other cases, Egan is regularly cited in support of strong, even unchecked executive authority and judicial deference to executive claims. It has become a cornerstone of national security law as practiced today.
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
12 Jun 2023 7:10 am
yes
google is your friend
12 Jun 2023 4:33 pm
Refute what? And why? To who?Prospero » 11 Jun 2023, 9:09 pm » wrote: ↑ So, hot shot. Refute this:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 53.3.0.pdf
[https://i.imgflip.com/9z0a87.jpg][/img]
12 Jun 2023 6:03 pm
Unlike you, I actually HAVE read the law. And quoted it here.
I'll do it again:
Title 1, Section 1: That (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to the believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States
First thing the law says. You don't even have to read far, which proves you didn't read it at all.
Good luck proving Trump wanted to hurt America.
12 Jun 2023 6:12 pm
Your comment seems to discuss a broader legal context rather than the specific charges against Donald Trump. So, I'm a little curious as to your point?Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 6:28 am » wrote: ↑ A Critical Look at Navy v. Egan
A 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Department of the Navy v. Egan has often been interpreted to support broad presidential authority over national security generally and over access to classified information in particular. Along with United States v. Reynolds, Curtiss-Wright, and a few other cases, Egan is regularly cited in support of strong, even unchecked executive authority and judicial deference to executive claims. It has become a cornerstone of national security law as practiced today.
12 Jun 2023 6:28 pm
The "Specific" charges are FULLY addressed in that ruling by the SCOTUS!! The PRESIDENT has BROAD AND UNLIMITED AUTHORITY TO DECLASSIFY ANYTHING AT ANY TIME AND IN ANY MANNER HE CHOOSES, ****!!!Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:12 pm » wrote: ↑ Your comment seems to discuss a broader legal context rather than the specific charges against Donald Trump. So, I'm a little curious as to your point?
Which FULLY addresses the BOGUS **** he's been charged with. You can't bring charges against a President or EX PRESIDENT when he states "I declassified it". PERIOD!!
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
12 Jun 2023 6:28 pm
Interesting, golfboy,golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 6:03 pm » wrote: ↑ Unlike you, I actually HAVE read the law. And quoted it here.
I'll do it again:
Title 1, Section 1: That (a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to the believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States
First thing the law says. You don't even have to read far, which proves you didn't read it at all.
Good luck proving Trump wanted to hurt America.
You wrote:
And the espionage act requires they PROVE Trump INTENDED to Harm America.
Well, I'm reading it to the letter and it doesn't actually say that. It does not explicitly require the prosecution to prove that Donald Trump intended to harm America. Rather, it sets forth the elements of the offense, which include the intent or reason to believe that the obtained information will be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation.
That's just it, right there, it's open ended, it doesn't specify 'by whom', it could be anyone. The DNI damage assessment would have to do with the likelihood foreign operators got a hold of the information, due to the lax security and over 150 weddings and events held at Mar A Lago since Trump left office.
So, in essence, what it really says is that it requires Trump to be aware of the damage it could do if it got out and into the hands of enemies, simplifying it and taking out the legal jargon. That's a far cry different than your claim.
12 Jun 2023 6:31 pm
Yes it does. Title1, Section1. They have to PROVE that Trump INTENDED to harm the United States.Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:28 pm » wrote: ↑ Interesting, golfboy,
You wrote:
And the espionage act requires they PROVE Trump INTENDED to Harm America.
Well, I'm reading it to the letter and it doesn't actually say that. It does not explicitly require the prosecution to prove that Donald Trump intended to harm America. Rather, it sets forth the elements of the offense, which include the intent or reason to believe that the obtained information will be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation.
That's just it, right there, it's open ended, it doesn't specify 'by whom', it could be anyone. The DNI damage assessment would have to do with the likelihood foreign operators got a hold of the information, due to the lax security and over 150 weddings and events held at Mar A Lago since Trump left office.
You can try to spin this all you want, but it's right there, in black and white.
Sorry. I know how that pops your little pink balloon.
12 Jun 2023 6:39 pm
You really can't read worth spit. What it says is that it requires Trump to be aware of the damage it could do if it got out and into the hands of enemies, simplifying it and taking out the legal jargon. It just doesn't say what you think it does. Legal jargon is tricky, but, that is what it says. Sorry.golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 6:31 pm » wrote: ↑ Yes it does. Title1, Section1. They have to PROVE that Trump INTENDED to harm the United States.
You can try to spin this all you want, but it's right there, in black and white.
Sorry. I know how that pops your little pink balloon.
And, there are other charges, Prosecutors would have to prove that Trump or those around him knew what they were doing was wrong and that they did it anyway and there is plenty of evidence of that. .
Epic fail.
12 Jun 2023 6:45 pm
Now, you REALLY need to READ Navy v Egan!! Which HAS RULED that the PRESIDENT HAS UNLIMITED AUTHORITY OVER CLASSIFIED INFORMATION simply because HE is the Commander in Chief of the Military and can do with is AS HE DAMN WELL PLEASES!!Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:28 pm » wrote: ↑ Interesting, golfboy,
You wrote:
And the espionage act requires they PROVE Trump INTENDED to Harm America.
Well, I'm reading it to the letter and it doesn't actually say that. It does not explicitly require the prosecution to prove that Donald Trump intended to harm America. Rather, it sets forth the elements of the offense, which include the intent or reason to believe that the obtained information will be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation.
That's just it, right there, it's open ended, it doesn't specify 'by whom', it could be anyone. The DNI damage assessment would have to do with the likelihood foreign operators got a hold of the information, due to the lax security and over 150 weddings and events held at Mar A Lago since Trump left office.
So, in essence, what it really says is that it requires Trump to be aware of the damage it could do if it got out and into the hands of enemies, simplifying it and taking out the legal jargon. That's a far cry different than your claim.
So this ENTIRE **** of the "Espionage Act is going to be TOSSED MASSIVELY on it's head. And you got JACK **** then!!
Here's your MASSIVE FAIL, ****!!.....
https://i.chzbgr.com/full/9040318976/h3 ... s-hard.gif
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
12 Jun 2023 6:46 pm
Barbara McQuade, former US Attorney says:golfboy » 12 Jun 2023, 6:31 pm » wrote: ↑ Yes it does. Title1, Section1. They have to PROVE that Trump INTENDED to harm the United States.
You can try to spin this all you want, but it's right there, in black and white.
Sorry. I know how that pops your little pink balloon.
One key element of breaking this law is intent — “that the defendant had reason to believe the information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,” McQuade said.
That corroborates my point. You are wrong.
12 Jun 2023 6:48 pm
Now, ****, here is YOUR problem. The DEFENDANT doesn't have to PROVED ONE DAMN THING!!Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:46 pm » wrote: ↑ Barbara McQuade, former US Attorney says:
One key element of breaking this law is intent — “that the defendant had reason to believe the information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,” McQuade said.
That corroborates my point. You are wrong.
The PROSECUTION has to FULLY PROVE INTENT to have ANY case under your claims!! So whatever "Barbara" said is FULLY A MOOT POINT without PROOF!!
Now that SUCKS for you, huh??
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
12 Jun 2023 6:48 pm
Hey jerkbreath, TRUMP IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT. We do not have to take his word for ****, he has to prove it.Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 6:45 pm » wrote: ↑ Now, you REALLY need to READ Navy v Egan!! Which HAS RULED that the PRESIDENT HAS UNLIMITED AUTHORITY OVER CLASSIFIED INFORMATION simply because HE is the Commander in Chief of the Military and can do with is AS HE DAMN WELL PLEASES!!
Are you really that stupid?So this ENTIRE **** of the "Espionage Act is going to be TOSSED MASSIVELY on it's head. And you got JACK **** then!!
Here's your MASSIVE FAIL, ****!!.....
No, the Espionage act DOES NOT DEPEND ON ANY CLASSIFICATION REGIME.
More likely it will depend on DNI damage assessments.
12 Jun 2023 6:50 pm
PSssst. ****.Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:48 pm » wrote: ↑ Are you really that stupid?
No, the Espionage act DOES NOT DEPEND ON ANY CLASSIFICATION REGIME.
More likely it will depend on DNI damage assessments.
The PRESIDENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY "classification regime" of ANY KIND AT ANY TIME.
DNI "assessment" is a POLITICAL document, and NOT LEGAL you STUPID ASSWIPE!!
Liberals are spoiled children, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic & useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats ~O'Rourke
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
The Democratic Party seems intransigent on their position of keeping the party ‘woke,’ detached, exclusionary, and totally insane.
12 Jun 2023 6:50 pm
MAn, you are one dumb bunny.Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 6:48 pm » wrote: ↑ Now, ****, here is YOUR problem. The DEFENDANT doesn't have to PROVED ONE DAMN THING!!
The PROSECUTION has to FULLY PROVE INTENT to have ANY case under your claims!! So whatever "Barbara" said is FULLY A MOOT POINT without PROOF!!
Now that SUCKS for you, huh??
Learn the law, asshole, not to mention that the Espionage act does not depend on any classification regime.
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