Liberal Forum

jerrab » 25 Jun 2023, 8:30 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:30 pm

the question is why did he keep it?

hint- he is a business man.

Ask him.   Oh wait, he's already answered that question. 
Maybe for the same reason Clinton did.   

And how about Biden, who had no authority to declassify anything, yet has had THOUSANDS of boxes of classified data in his possession for years- decades.
Why is it, that you're focused on Trump, and ignoring Biden?
 

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:13 pm

This is nothing but another political attack. 
As Biden said, they will do anything to prevent Trump from running for President. 

Just like every other claim against him, this one too, will fail.

biden did not tell trump to steal US government documents and secrets.

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 8:32 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:32 pm

Ask him.   Oh wait, he's already answered that question. 
Maybe for the same reason Clinton did.   

And how about Biden, who had no authority to declassify anything, yet has had THOUSANDS of boxes of classified data in his possession for years- decades.
Why is it, that you're focused on Trump, and ignoring Biden?

thousands?

and you know this, how?

user1687614437 » 25 Jun 2023, 8:27 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:27 pm

No it is not.... cut and paste "Espionage Ac"t from the indictment or please stop using that term...

I am not going to play word games with you.  The Espionage Act lives on, even after portions known as the Sedition Act were removed.The Espionage Act of 1917 is a United States federal law enacted on June 15, 1917, shortly after the United States entered World War I. It has been amended numerous times over the years. It was originally found in Title 50 of the U.S. Code (War & National Defense) but is now found under Title 18 (Crime & Criminal Procedure). Specifically, it is 18 U.S.C. ch. 37(18 U.S.C. § 792 et seq.)

And I will use that term whenever the **** I want to so go **** yourself.... please.

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 7:25 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 7:25 pm

When was Judge Jackson's precedent setting ruling?
Oh yea, 2012.  

So was the law you quoted in effect, when the judge ruled the President was the SOLE decider in what records were his, and what belonged to the government?

she butchered the law.

 

jerrab » 25 Jun 2023, 8:34 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:34 pm

thousands?

and you know this, how?

Are you seriously this uninformed?

Almost a year ago to the day, HuffPost broke a bit of news that was disconcerting, if not necessarily urgent at the time:The University of Delaware, home to almost 2,000 boxes of records from Joe Biden’s career in the Senate, was already three months late in making those documents available to the public and was pushing their release back to the end of 2019 at the earliest.

 
Those documents STILL haven't been released, and this was just ONE site. 
 

jerrab » 25 Jun 2023, 8:49 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:49 pm

she butchered the law.

But it was okay when it was to protect President Clinton. 
 

jerrab » 25 Jun 2023, 8:33 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:33 pm

biden did not tell trump to steal US government documents and secrets.

How can Trump steal his own documents?
 

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 8:29 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:29 pm

How would those documents be used to hurt America?
Please be specific. 
 
You're a joke.  You didn't even know what the **** charging document said.

Specifically... the statute does not require that the person charged believed the documents WOULD be used to hurt America.
How much more specific do I need to be?

maineman » 25 Jun 2023, 8:31 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:31 pm

the law does not require that they WOULD be used to hurt America, but only that the person mishandling them knew that they COULD be so used.

are you dumb?

I'm still asking how his documents could be used to hurt America. 
No answer? 
 

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 8:53 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:53 pm

I'm still asking how his documents could be used to hurt America. 
No answer?

Now you are asking how they COULD be used to hurt America.

before you were asking how they WOULD be used to hurt America.

Does word soup afflict you so profoundly that you do not understand the difference between those two questions??

And again, I say that if you cannot see how highly sensitive intelligence information about US embedded intelligence agents, or capabilities of US ICBMs or the locations of US nuclear assets, or the frequencies that we use to communicate with CIA agents overseas COULD be used to hurt America, you probably need to just shut the **** up and go back to your fry-o-later.

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 8:51 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:51 pm

How can Trump steal his own documents?

they are not his documents.

they are property of the US government/ nara
 

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 8:50 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 8:50 pm

But it was okay when it was to protect President Clinton.

nara did not want the tapes in the first place.

jerrab » 25 Jun 2023, 9:08 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 9:08 pm

nara did not want the tapes in the first place.

Doesn't matter.  Were they the property of the United States, or of Bill Clinton?
 

jerrab » 25 Jun 2023, 9:06 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 9:06 pm

they are not his documents.

they are property of the US government/ nara

Judge Jackson said you're wrong. 
Precedent has been set. 


 

maineman » 25 Jun 2023, 9:03 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 9:03 pm

Now you are asking how they COULD be used to hurt America.

before you were asking how they WOULD be used to hurt America.

Does word soup afflict you so profoundly that you do not understand the difference between those two questions??

And again, I say that if you cannot see how highly sensitive intelligence information about US embedded intelligence agents, or capabilities of US ICBMs or the locations of US nuclear assets, or the frequencies that we use to communicate with CIA agents overseas COULD be used to hurt America, you probably need to just shut the **** up and go back to your fry-o-later.

You've never even read the charging documents.  You have NO IDEA WTF you're talking about. 
You're inventing scenarios without having a shred of evidence that ANY of it is true. 
But that's you. 


 

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 9:27 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 9:27 pm

You've never even read the charging documents.  You have NO IDEA WTF you're talking about. 
You're inventing scenarios without having a shred of evidence that ANY of it is true. 
But that's you.

Mainstain is the same guy that thought "Bobby Three Sticks" was gonna be the end of Trump too...


 
 

 

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 9:27 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 9:27 pm

You've never even read the charging documents.  You have NO IDEA WTF you're talking about. 
You're inventing scenarios without having a shred of evidence that ANY of it is true. 
But that's you.

I read the indictment and I read and understand the relevant sections of the Espionage Act now enshrined in Title 18.

1. The law does not require that the person mishandling documents know that they will be used to hurt the US, only that they could be so used.  He does not need to intend to harm America, he only needs to know that, were the mishandled documents to somehow find their way to the wrong person, they COULD hurt America.

2. You continue to not be able to tell the difference between would and could, and you cannot understand that section 793(e) does NOT require intent to harm the US.

3. You also continue to toss around issues surrounding classification as if that had anything to do with the Espionage Act as currently constructed.

Show me how any of those three assertions is incorrect. 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1673062623716204548

maineman » 25 Jun 2023, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 9:33 pm

I read the indictment and I read and understand the relevant sections of the Espionage Act now enshrined in Title 18.

1. The law does not require that the person mishandling documents know that they will be used to hurt the US, only that they could be so used.  He does not need to intend to harm America, he only needs to know that, were the mishandled documents to somehow find their way to the wrong person, they COULD hurt America.

2. You continue to not be able to tell the difference between would and could, and you cannot understand that section 793(e) does NOT require intent to harm the US.

3. You also continue to toss around issues surrounding classification as if that had anything to do with the Espionage Act as currently constructed.

Show me how any of those three assertions is incorrect.

You keep repeating this same, debunked talking points. 
Just like always, when you've lost an argument. 

1)  The only way anything Trump had COULD be used to hurt the U.S. was if he gave it, or sold it to someone, and it was still relevant.  
You fail because.

2)  You never even read the charging documents, and you didn't even know what the law said until I corrected you.

3)  You were the one that brought up TS (SI) information, not me.  Don't blame me for your stupidity. 

All your assertions are incorrect. 
As always.