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
3 Jun 2023 3:38 am
Right, so the answer to the question is that you think they got him now...Prospero » 02 Jun 2023, 4:13 pm » wrote: ↑ The OP is in a question & answer format. So, it follows that the subject is in question form, and the conclusion of the OP is the answer.
Not rocket science..
Of course, the thought of coming to this place sober is just scary...Ps, you appear to be smoking something.
Just sayin'
Ps, you appeared to be a sok but now I'm not sure, your particular kind of cluelessness seems vaguely familiar but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.. for now... welcome to the funny farm... and good luck with the rocket science, you will need it....
In memory of Pumpkins
3 Jun 2023 5:05 am
Jantje_Smit » 03 Jun 2023, 3:38 am » wrote: ↑ Right, so the answer to the question is that you think they got him now...
Of course, the thought of coming to this place sober is just scary...
Ps, you appeared to be a sok but now I'm not sure, your particular kind of cluelessness seems vaguely familiar but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.. for now... welcome to the funny farm... and good luck with the rocket science, you will need it....
All I ask is that when you make a claim, if you are NOT clueless, you'll be happy to substantiate that claim.
The claim you made was that I'm clueless.
Evidence, please.
Ah hah! You don't have it.
"he who slings mud loses ground" ---some ancient asian dude, didn't you get the memo?
3 Jun 2023 5:08 am
Oh, I pretend not.Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2023, 1:33 am » wrote: ↑ 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.
IN the meantime, you've made a claim, that Biden has a scandal.
The only kind I know of are those that the right have manufactured in their fertile imaginations..
IF you have an actual scandal, you'll need to provide evidence for it.
Take care,
Prospero
3 Jun 2023 5:32 am
Is that you Marge?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.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
3 Jun 2023 5:41 am
Oh, so you now want to operate on the "GUILTY until proven innocent" NAZI way of criminal proceedings!! GOT IT!!!Prospero » 02 Jun 2023, 3:58 pm » wrote: ↑ The entire issue of 'declassification' is pretty much a moot issue. It won't matter if Trump declassified them or not. Violation of the Espionage Act does not depend on any classification regime. It will depend much more so on DNI damage assessments, as well as aggravating factors (such as Trump's obstruction). Etc.
But, to reply to your claim that 'we must prove he didn't declassify them'. No, the onus is on those who make claims to prove their claim. Trump has claimed that he 'declassified them with his thoughts', which is an absurd claim. If classification was an issue (and it isn't that much), Trump will need to prove that he declassified the documents, but we know that he didn't, because there is no proof (noting that a new tape produced proves that he didn't), nor are any of his aides willing to testify under oath that Trump declassified them. Some have claimed otherwise, such as John Bolton, Bill Barr, and others.
Fact is, YOU HAVE TO PROVE that he DID NOT declassify in order to have a criminal case. PERIOD!! THE ONUS is always to PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT of guilt!! The simple FACT that the President has UNLIMITED declassification power as the Commander and Chief of the military ends ALL requirements to do ANYTHING other than say "Its declassified" and even then, he doesn't even have to do that. THAT is the CONSTITUTIONAL LEGALITIES, of which you LWNJ NAZIS seem to hate with a passion since it totally destroys any and all **** you put out. Like above.
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.
3 Jun 2023 5:42 am
That won't help you become a wealthier person, your children a success, or your wife to lose the extra 220 pounds she's packing. Envy is a deadly sin...basing your failings as a human being on it, is a form of mental masturbation.Xavier_Onassis » 02 Jun 2023, 6:58 pm » wrote: ↑ Trump deserves to be locked away in prison.
Ten years should be adequate.
3 Jun 2023 5:45 am
Has she transitioned again?
3 Jun 2023 5:59 am
Hey numbnutz, you need to READ that EO that outlines Declassification that your boy Ovomit issued!!Prospero » 02 Jun 2023, 4:20 pm » wrote: ↑ Ahh, but the problem is that a former president, who 'claims he declassified them', note that he is NO LONGER PRESIDENT as he makes that claim. Capiche? He will then have to prove that he declassified them (should that become an issue, and it won't so much, as is explained below). Without his following the protocols of memorialization, he won't have proof. So, your point is really of no consequence and is, indeed, problematic, when it comes to legal jeopardy.
While you make an interesting point, that the 'President can declassify anything he damn well pleases', that's not quite accurate. He certainly cannot declassify, without consent from the issuing authority, 'restricted data' documents (nuclear secrets, see the AEA). Moreover, his classification authority is monitored by an Executive Order which now establishes protocols for declassification. However, we can argue this until the end of time, but it's a moot point. A violation of the Espionage act does not depend on the classification regime. It will depend much more so on DNI damage assessments. Trump Claims He Declassified All the Documents at Mar-a-Lago. Even if That’s True, it Probably Doesn’t Matter - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
AS for other presidents, another interesting point, but it appears that DOJ policy regarding high level execs who take NDI docs, it's more of an issue of aggravated circumstances, such as obstruction, deliberate taking, that sort of thing, which does exist with Trump, not so much the other presidents. The DOJ will give former and existing presidents the benefit of the doubt that they took the docs inadvertently, and all they need to do is return them. Which is what Biden and Pence did. However, Trump went on TV and admitted he deliberately took them and that he had the right to do it, then he obstructed the govs attempts to retrieve certain documents.
IT COMPLETELY eliminates the President from following ANY declassification "rules" you claim Trump must follow!! Sucks you are too stupid to actually READ IT and see what it says before you open your peckermouth and get your ARSE kicked up around your neck so you smell your nasty ARSE all day!! That must really SUCK, huh??
PSSSST. Again. ANY criminal case you want to make, the EVIDENCE OF GUILT must be shown in Court to CONVICT!! NOT that Trump must prove he did or didn't do something. You DO love you some NAZI CRIMINAL PROCEDURES, which is easy to see.
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.
3 Jun 2023 6:05 am
That's not the way it works.. you claim they got him now... that is a clueless statement.. and the fact that you require evidence of the cluelessness only underscores my point... it is up to you to prove that you're not a clueless brainwashed snowflake... as I said, good luck with that...Prospero » 03 Jun 2023, 5:05 am » wrote: ↑ All I ask is that when you make a claim, if you are NOT clueless, you'll be happy to substantiate that claim.
The claim you made was that I'm clueless.
Evidence, please.
Ah hah! You don't have it.
"he who slings mud loses ground" ---some ancient asian dude, didn't you get the memo?
In memory of Pumpkins
3 Jun 2023 6:08 am
That "I'm just here to do research and collect data" spiel sounded eerily familiar.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
3 Jun 2023 6:14 am
you got aids in jailProspero » 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.
3 Jun 2023 6:18 am
Squatchman » 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.
Do you got him now?...how many times does that make?.....I know!!...why don't you get him good next time?
3 Jun 2023 6:22 am
Due do the 4000 character limitation, this reply is in two parts: Part 1.Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2023, 1:16 am » wrote: ↑ If they were not uncommon, you'd not signal desperation by invoking south korea. What's next - Uraguay?
Surely you are not comparing SK to Uruguay? There are no countries, really, on par with America, so this idea that we can't use other first world countries as a comparative basis rings hollow.
That it hasn't been done isn't an argument for not doing it. America has never had a demagogue. Germany did, so did Spain, Argentina, Vemezuela, etc. Now that America has, she must deal with him in a way that is just. If Trump is a criminal, and I believe there is enough evidence to make that claim, then, according to the American principle that no man is about the law, he must be tried in a court of law, according to the facts and applicable law.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.
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.
Is he an avatar on this forum, or are you referring to the historical figure? I'm not seeing why you mentioned it.Hey, wait. You could use jefferon davis!
Not seeing evidence of that contention, so far, but, moving on......Well, let us not rob the matter of context, shall we? You commit the following three GROSS errors:
That would make sense if it were true, but you haven't provided evidence of your contention. So, until then, your argument on that point is weak.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.
We are anonymous here. Who makes the argument isn't important. All that matters is the argument. Either you can demonstrate, with evidence, facts, testimony, documents, links to authoritative supplements to embolden your contention, provide a path of reason and logic, or you can't. Your point is not an argument, not that you care about that, but I should think that on debate forums the argument is the central thing.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.
That isn't really an argument. It is a sentiment, and sentiments are fine, perhaps an interesting take, but, in my view, don't really forward the discussion, or not that much. They just tell us more about yourself, and that means you assume I'm interested, and I'm really not. I'm here to find the best argument, be it mine, be it ChatGTP/AI, be it yours or that of another. I will concede to more compelling arguments than my own, that is all that matters. If Chat has a more compelling arguent than my own, I won't hesitate to use it. Again, I repeat, we are anonymous here, all that matters is the argument. I do recognize that not everyone is here for the reason I'm here. Some are here just to amuse themselves, not really into debating, or searching for the most compelling argument, as I am, and that is fine.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 Jun 2023 6:28 am
Part 2, continued:Cannonpointer » 03 Jun 2023, 1:16 am » wrote: ↑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.
But I didn't ask anyone on this forum if they 'cared'. I'm not that much interested in sentiment but of course it's okay to slip them in here and there. I'm glad you and I agree on that sentiment that you approve of Trump going to jail, however. I don't think it would be a low, I think it would be America coming to her senses and doing the right thing and having the courage to do it. It would tell the world that America is not going to let a criminal demagogue get away with it (evidence of criminality and demagoguery provided on request). I do believe that, if Trump is convicted to a jail sentence, we should honor the office that he represented and build him his own private wing at Rikers (or wherever), where his SS buddies who would hang out with him.
Moving on...
Your first point seems to accuse me of a double standard, but this is shifting the goalposts. We're discussing Trump's handling of classified documents here. If you'd like to have a separate discussion about Biden's actions, that's perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't negate the validity of this conversation. It's essential to note that holding all politicians accountable for their actions isn't a matter of bias or preference, but a principle of good governance.
Your second point suggests that I'm participating in a repeated pattern of crying wolf about Trump's actions. Again, this argument avoids addressing the topic directly and instead focuses on perceived patterns of behavior among those who critique Trump. Even if there were previous false alarms, that doesn't invalidate every subsequent concern.
As for your third point, the value or worthiness of a topic is subjective. What you might consider "barely worth an ad hom and a dismissal" may be of considerable interest or concern to others. We're all entitled to our opinions, but, as I stated above, I'm really not interested in sentiments, rants. While I understand your desire for debates on other pressing topics, this does not diminish the importance of accountability and the rule of law, which is the essence of this conversation. Your assertion that our opinions won't impact the outcome is indeed accurate, but that doesn't negate the value of public discourse. Discussing and critiquing the actions of our leaders is a vital part of a democratic society.
Is it not?
And so, I agree with you that a host of other significant issues deserves our attention, and I'd be more than willing to engage in a civil discussion on those topics in other threads (and I'm new here, you might want to link to threads you've started on other topics, the search function doesn't work so well for me for some reason on this particular forum). But for this discussion, I'd prefer if we could stick to the topic at hand and avoid personal accusations or dismissals. Let's focus on the potential legal implications of Trump's handling of classified documents and what that might mean for our country. If the topic is something you are bothered or are weary of, then I'm wondering why you chose to contribute to it?
3 Jun 2023 6:40 am
3 Jun 2023 6:59 am
Prospero » 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.
clinton did it and got away with it
3 Jun 2023 7:16 am
An expert on CNNLOL just told Victor Blackwell said that the President has the authority to declassify anything at any time (and cited examples of Presidents doing just that) without following the protocols that others must follow. He also said he, and most others Constitutional experts, doubt any court would rule otherwise as it would be a restriction of the powers of the CIC. Like it or not, when it comes to the classification and declassification of documents, the rules that apply to everyone else in the government DO NOT APPLY to the Commander in Chief as he is the final authority on classification and security clearance matters.Prospero » 03 Jun 2023, 12:21 am » wrote: ↑ 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).
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)
Summarized here: Government Classification and the Mar-a-Lago Documents | Brennan Center for Justice
See above
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.
That doesn't mean the President shouldn't follow protocol...it means he isn't required to follow protocol.
3 Jun 2023 7:29 am
you **** farm animals is not brilliant its rather foolhardy
3 Jun 2023 9:49 am
YOU'RE FULL OF ****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.
3 Jun 2023 9:53 am
HE'S ANOTHER FANTASTICAL SOKCannonpointer » 03 Jun 2023, 1:33 am » wrote: ↑ 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.
GOT HIS NUMBER
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