Liberal Forum

Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:48 pm » wrote: ↑

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.  

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.

Nope. The PROSECUTION has to PROVE IT, and PRESIDENT TRUMP has to only use the LAWS AND THE RULINGS BY THE SCOTUS TO KICK THIS IN THE BALLS!!

Buh bye, PROSECUTION!!

Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 6:28 pm » wrote: ↑

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, ****!!!

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!!

He's not president. Ex presidents have no authority to make any claim, they have to prove it.  

Moreover, espionage does not depend on classification. 

*******.  
 

Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:50 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:50 pm

MAn, you are one dumb bunny.  

Learn the law, asshole, not to mention that the Espionage act does not depend on any classification regime.

Which is WHY OTHER LAWS HAVE BEEN PASSED THAT LITERALLY GUT THAT LAW!!

Sucks for you again, ****!!!

Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 6:52 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:52 pm

Which is WHY OTHER LAWS HAVE BEEN PASSED THAT LITERALLY GUT THAT LAW!!

Sucks for you again, ****!!!

Name one. 

I'll be waiting.  
 

Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:52 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:52 pm

He's not president. 

*******.

Which is WHY 100% of ALL DOCUMENTS in possession of an EX PRESIDENT fall under the PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT!!

Sucks you get YOUR OWN *** KICKED BY YOUR OWN STUPID POSTS, huh, ****???

LMBO!!!

                             

Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 6:53 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:53 pm

Which is WHY 100% of ALL DOCUMENTS in possession of an EX PRESIDENT fall under the PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT!!

Sucks you get YOUR OWN *** KICKED BY YOUR OWN STUPID POSTS, huh, ****???

LMBO!!!

                           

Hey **** FOR BRAINS

The PRA is NOT IN THE CRIMINAL CODE.  

wake the **** up


 **** moron. 
 

Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:53 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:53 pm

Name one. 

I'll be waiting.

Presidential Records Act which is SPECIFIC TO EX PRESIDENTS!!

Damn, this is soooooo effing EASY to kick you in the BALLS!!

I bet you are getting MIGHTY SORE about right now, huh, ******??

Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:55 pm

Hey **** FOR BRAINS

The PRA is NOT IN THE CRIMINAL CODE.  

wake the **** up

EXACTLY and why it APTLY APPLIES HERE in that THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR THE FBI or DOJ ro EXECUTE ANY SEARCH OF ANY DOCUMENTS IN POSSESSION OF AN EX PRESIDENT!! HE determines what WILL OR WILL NOT be turned over to the NATIONAL ARCHIVES!!

Damn, son, you get that NASTY NAZI *** OF YOURS KICKED AGAIN!!

 

Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 6:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:55 pm

Presidential Records Act which is SPECIFIC TO EX PRESIDENTS!!

Damn, this is soooooo effing EASY to kick you in the BALLS!!

I bet you are getting MIGHTY SORE about right now, huh, ******??

PRA is not in the criminal code, and has NO EFFECT on the Espionage Act. 

**** moron. 

Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 6:56 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:56 pm

EXACTLY and why it APTLY APPLIES HERE in that THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR THE FBI or DOJ ro EXECUTE ANY SEARCH OF ANY DOCUMENTS IN POSSESSION OF AN EX PRESIDENT!! HE determines what WILL OR WILL NOT be turned over to the NATIONAL ARCHIVES!!

Damn, son, you get that NASTY NAZI *** OF YOURS KICKED AGAIN!!

When someone breaks the law, the criminal code is the applicable law.  Not PRA, which is administrative law.  

You are one of the dumbest **** on this board. 

Really.  You don't know the law, ****.  You can't even read, 

Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:57 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:57 pm

PRA is not in the criminal code, and has NO EFFECT on the Espionage Act. 

**** moron.

The ESPIONAGE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS, DUMB ***, THE PRA DOES!! The ARCHIVES HAD NOT ONE IOTA of AUTHORITY TO DEMAND A DAMN THING NOR BRING IN THE FBI OR DOJ!! Which means, the ENTIRE CASE FALLS APART ON AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE!!! WHICH IS FULLY APPLICABLE UNDER THE PRA !!!

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/l ... pinion.pdf

DO SOME READING AND THEN SHUT YOUR NASTY NAZI **** MOUTHY ***!!!
 

Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 7:00 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:00 pm

The ESPIONAGE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS, DUMB ***, THE PRA DOES!! The ARCHIVES HAD NOT AUTHORITY TO DEMAND A DAMN THING NOR BRING IN THE FBI OR DOJ!! Which means, the ENTIRE CASE FALLS APART ON AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE!!! WHICH IS FULLY APPLICABLE UNDER THE PRA !!!

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/l ... pinion.pdf

DO SOME READING AND THEN SHUT YOUR NASTY NAZI **** MOUTHY ***!!!

Hey asshole, we are not talking about presidential papers, we are talking about national defense information documents, which is governed by the Espionage act if and when the law is broken.  

PRA has no teeth, it's admin only.  You can break it all day long without consequence.  It's a **** guide.  

 
 

Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 6:59 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 6:59 pm

When someone breaks the law, the criminal code is the applicable law.  Not PRA, which is administrative law.  

You are one of the dumbest **** on this board. 

Really.  You don't know the law, ****.  You can't even read,

A EX PRESIDENT has FULL CONTROL over ALL DOCUMENTS he takes with him. PERIOD. NOT the NARA, NOT THE DOJ, NOT THE FBI, NOT EVEN BIDEN AS PRESIDENT!!

RULING IS AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS....

NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA
lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be
available to redress plaintiff's alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff's characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much
less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.

 
 

Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 7:03 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:03 pm

A EX PRESIDENT has FULL CONTROL over ALL DOCUMENTS he takes with him.
 

He can't take national defense information documents.  That violates the Espionage Act.  Sorry.  Only personal papers. That was what the special master was all about, remember, ****?  

PERIOD. NOT the NARA, NOT THE DOJ, NOT THE FBI, NOT EVEN BIDEN AS PRESIDENT!!

RULING IS AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS....

Alright beekeeper.  Let's watch how the court case will unfold, and then you will learn how wrong you are. 

 
 

Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 7:08 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:08 pm

He can't take national defense information documents.  That violates the Espionage Act.  Sorry.  Only personal papers. That was what the special master was all about, remember, ****?  

Alright beekeeper.  Let's watch how the court case will unfold, and then you will learn how wrong you are.

Give up did you!!!

https://media1.giphy.com/media/7hzoNP0cinBBe/200w.gif
 

Beekeeper » 12 Jun 2023, 7:11 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:11 pm

Give up did you!!!

Man you are stupid. 

Remember Judge Cannon?   she ordered a 'special master?

Do you remember, ****, what they Special Master was assigned to do? 

He was assigned to separate PRESIDENTIAL (AS IN PERSONAL) PAPERS from National defense information documents, because those belong to NARA. 

Got that, **** for brains? 

Your Judicial Watch case has no bearing on this one.  
 
 

Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 7:08 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:08 pm

He can't take national defense information documents.  That violates the Espionage Act.  Sorry.  Only personal papers. That was what the special master was all about, remember, ****?  

Alright beekeeper.  Let's watch how the court case will unfold, and then you will learn how wrong you are.

 
 

Prospero » 12 Jun 2023, 7:14 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 7:14 pm

Man you are stupid. 

Remember Judge Cannon?   she ordered a 'special master?

Do you remember, ****, what they Special Master was assigned to do? 

He was assigned to separate PRESIDENTIAL (AS IN PERSONAL) PAPERS from National defense information documents, because those belong to NARA. 

Got that, **** for brains? 

Your Judicial Watch case has no bearing on this one.

Oh dippyshiitty, that CLINTON TAPES CASE has FULL bearing on this case!!

You see, the ONLY ONE who can designate PERSON PAPERS from "Government papers" is THE EX PRESIDENT/PRESIDENT who possesses them!! Not the NARA, NOT the FBI, NOT the CIA, NOT THE DOJ, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM!! And the PRA STATES THAT POINT VERY SUCCINCTLY!!

And that "special master" was to ALLOW TRUMP to designate PER THE PRA, what was his and what he would return, not as you claim. Which is WHY the DOJ appealed the decision!! Trump didn't take it higher ONLY because that work was already finished!!

It sucks that you are UNABLE TO READ AND COMPREHEND simple court rulings and LAWS, huh, ****??

 
 

Beekeeper » 13 Jun 2023, 5:42 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 5:42 am

Oh dippyshiitty, that CLINTON TAPES CASE has FULL bearing on this case!!

You see, the ONLY ONE who can designate PERSON PAPERS from "Government papers" is THE EX PRESIDENT/PRESIDENT who possesses them!! Not the NARA, NOT the FBI, NOT the CIA, NOT THE DOJ, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM!! And the PRA STATES THAT POINT VERY SUCCINCTLY!!

And that "special master" was to ALLOW TRUMP to designate PER THE PRA, what was his and what he would return, not as you claim. Which is WHY the DOJ appealed the decision!! Trump didn't take it higher ONLY because that work was already finished!!

It sucks that you are UNABLE TO READ AND COMPREHEND simple court rulings and LAWS, huh, ****??

The clinton tapes were not subject to the PRA.  

Sorry, doesn't apply. 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2023 ... not-compa/

AI:  the “sock drawer tapes” case refers to a 1996 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that allowed President Bill Clinton to keep audiotapes in his sock drawer. The tapes were recordings of conversations between Clinton and his advisers and were not subject to the Presidential Records Act (PRA) because they were not created or received in the course of official business1.However, it is not a good argument to compare this case with Trump’s indictment. Trump is accused of mishandling classified documents after his exit from the Presidency2. The indictment alleges that Trump “gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, official documents, and other materials in cardboard boxes that he kept in the White House. Among the materials Trump stored in his boxes were hundreds of classified documents” 3.
 
 

Prospero » 13 Jun 2023, 10:44 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 10:44 pm

The clinton tapes were not subject to the PRA.  

Sorry, doesn't apply. 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2023 ... not-compa/

AI:  the “sock drawer tapes” case refers to a 1996 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that allowed President Bill Clinton to keep audiotapes in his sock drawer. The tapes were recordings of conversations between Clinton and his advisers and were not subject to the Presidential Records Act (PRA) because they were not created or received in the course of official business1.However, it is not a good argument to compare this case with Trump’s indictment. Trump is accused of mishandling classified documents after his exit from the Presidency2. The indictment alleges that Trump “gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, official documents, and other materials in cardboard boxes that he kept in the White House. Among the materials Trump stored in his boxes were hundreds of classified documents” 3.

Politifact???

What an EFFING JOKE of a leftwing POS you bring to "counter" your OWN ****!!

Try harder, ****, because the ruling STATED PLAINLY that UNDER the PRA, the NARA NOR the FBI of DOJ had ANY AUTHORITY to seize anything from Clinton!!

READ THE EFFING RULING ARSEHOLE, then SHUT THE **** UPO!!