Liberal Forum

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 9:10 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 9:10 pm

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

they were his personal property and nara had already  said so before.

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 9:44 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 9:44 pm

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.

1.  and you feel that highly sensitive information regarding our intelligence assets, our nuclear stockpile, and our weapons systems capabilities could not be used to hurt the US if the former president just happened to show it to someone at Bedminster in the dining room?
2.  You never corrected me.  I pointed out to you that the section of the law listed did NOT require intent.
3.  I brought up TS (SI) information as an example of the sort of documents the president had taken from the White House and that were carelessly stored in the bathroom and on the ballroom stage at Mar-a-Lago... and I showed you that, even if the clown had taken steps to "declassify" them that they would still be just as dangerous in the wrong hands because of their content regardless of their classification, and that classification is irrelevant to all sections of the Espionage Act.

All my assertions are correct.

Mister Muzzle Break
 

maineman » 25 Jun 2023, 7:04 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 7:04 pm

The espionage act does not even mention the word "classification" or "declassification" for that matter.  oops!

He can declassify anything he wants, it still does not mean that it is not potentially harmful to the US if it fell into the wrong hands.

hey, what was the original concept about things not listed or mentioned in the "Constitution". Limited central governance with all they were allowed to do written, not interpreted in multiple meanings. Brevity is the soul of wit, honesty is the sole of witnessing life as limited to mutually evolving forward with an ever changing body never duplicated details since conceived twice, same as anything outside one's own flesh. Commonality when sharing space at the same time.

Simple as evolving, did it actually exist or not. Not events that happen between things existing in series parallel time. Was or is it part of adapting in space mutually evolving forward now.

Self evident results that did or didn't evolve at one generation gap before or currently here. What if doesn't change did, doing, does continue. It does corrupt what remains evolving.

golfboy » 25 Jun 2023, 9:23 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 9:23 pm

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

when was she president and have the power to annul a law signed by a US president?

jerrab » 26 Jun 2023, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 12:11 pm

when was she president and have the power to annul a law signed by a US president?

How many times did liberal judges interfere with President Trump?
Evidently you don't understand the "checks and balances" that exist in our Constitution.

You should read it sometime, or better yet, take a class. 
 

maineman » 25 Jun 2023, 10:11 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2023, 10:11 pm

1.  and you feel that highly sensitive information regarding our intelligence assets, our nuclear stockpile, and our weapons systems capabilities could not be used to hurt the US if the former president just happened to show it to someone at Bedminster in the dining room?
2.  You never corrected me.  I pointed out to you that the section of the law listed did NOT require intent.
3.  I brought up TS (SI) information as an example of the sort of documents the president had taken from the White House and that were carelessly stored in the bathroom and on the ballroom stage at Mar-a-Lago... and I showed you that, even if the clown had taken steps to "declassify" them that they would still be just as dangerous in the wrong hands because of their content regardless of their classification, and that classification is irrelevant to all sections of the Espionage Act.

All my assertions are correct.

Mister Muzzle Break

Typical mainbitch.  When proven wrong, simply repeats himself and thinks suddenly everything he claims is true. 

 

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 1:44 pm

How many times did liberal judges interfere with President Trump?
Evidently you don't understand the "checks and balances" that exist in our Constitution.

You should read it sometime, or better yet, take a class.

what judge annulled what US law?

and prove it with a link.​​​​​​​

jerrab » 26 Jun 2023, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 1:55 pm

what judge annulled what US law?

and prove it with a link.

Just one?
Judge overturns Trump border rule requiring immigrants to first claim .
Judge's ruling means the Trump administration must allow all migrants ...
Judge blocks Trump administration from denying asylum claims 
Trump asylum ban is illegal, federal judge rules | CNN Politics

And who was the judge that made up the rule/law that illegals had to be released in what was it... 30 days?
 

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 2:25 pm

Just one?
Judge overturns Trump border rule requiring immigrants to first claim .
Judge's ruling means the Trump administration must allow all migrants ...
Judge blocks Trump administration from denying asylum claims 
Trump asylum ban is illegal, federal judge rules | CNN Politics

And who was the judge that made up the rule/law that illegals had to be released in what was it... 30 days?

were they US laws? thru congress and signed by a US president?

 
be careful

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 2:25 pm

Just one?
Judge overturns Trump border rule requiring immigrants to first claim .
Judge's ruling means the Trump administration must allow all migrants ...
Judge blocks Trump administration from denying asylum claims 
Trump asylum ban is illegal, federal judge rules | CNN Politics

And who was the judge that made up the rule/law that illegals had to be released in what was it... 30 days?

https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/alert- ... n-of-daca/

 ALERT
Supreme Court Overturns Trump Administration’s Termination of DACAJUNE 22, 2020On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision finding that the Trump administration’s termination of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was (1) judicially reviewable and (2) done in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[1]Violations of the Administrative Procedure ActIn concluding that the DACA termination violated the APA, the Court reasoned, first, that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to distinguish between the protections from deportation (“forbearance from removal”) and the benefits (such as work authorization) that come with DACA. DHS did not consider whether to retain the protections from deportation even if the benefits were terminated. Second, DHS did not consider the hardship rescission would cause to DACA recipients and its farreaching consequences — and the enormous “reliance interests” at stake. The Court specifically noted the respondents’ words:
 

jerrab » 26 Jun 2023, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 2:55 pm

https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/alert- ... n-of-daca/

 ALERT
Supreme Court Overturns Trump Administration’s Termination of DACAJUNE 22, 2020On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision finding that the Trump administration’s termination of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was (1) judicially reviewable and (2) done in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[1]Violations of the Administrative Procedure ActIn concluding that the DACA termination violated the APA, the Court reasoned, first, that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to distinguish between the protections from deportation (“forbearance from removal”) and the benefits (such as work authorization) that come with DACA. DHS did not consider whether to retain the protections from deportation even if the benefits were terminated. Second, DHS did not consider the hardship rescission would cause to DACA recipients and its farreaching consequences — and the enormous “reliance interests” at stake. The Court specifically noted the respondents’ words:

trump's order was not a law enacted by congress.


 

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 2:25 pm

Just one?
Judge overturns Trump border rule requiring immigrants to first claim .
Judge's ruling means the Trump administration must allow all migrants ...
Judge blocks Trump administration from denying asylum claims 
Trump asylum ban is illegal, federal judge rules | CNN Politics

And who was the judge that made up the rule/law that illegals had to be released in what was it... 30 days?

not US laws 

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 1:51 pm

Typical mainbitch.  When proven wrong, simply repeats himself and thinks suddenly everything he claims is true.

Typical @golfboy, cannot refute a single one of my statements.  NOT.  ONE.

1.  There is no doubt that simply by the seemingly innocent act of showing a document containing sensitive national security information to his club members at Bedminster, the clown COULD bring harm to the US.
2.Subsection 793(e) does NOT require INTENT.  The word is never used in that subsection, whereas it IS used in subsections (a) and (b)
3. sensitive material carelessly piled into Mar-a-Lago bathrooms and ballroom stages, whether or not the clown thought he had "declassified" them does not make them any less a violation of the Espionage Act as codified in 18 U.S.C. ch. 37(18 U.S.C. § 792 et seq.).

Now if you would LIKE to try to refute those three statements, have at it.

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 2:25 pm

Just one?
Judge overturns Trump border rule requiring immigrants to first claim .
Judge's ruling means the Trump administration must allow all migrants ...
Judge blocks Trump administration from denying asylum claims 
Trump asylum ban is illegal, federal judge rules | CNN Politics

And who was the judge that made up the rule/law that illegals had to be released in what was it... 30 days?

from your link
-----------------------------In an order laced with language accusing President Donald Trump of attempting to rewrite immigration laws, a federal judge based in San Francisco temporarily blocked the government late Monday night from denying asylum to those crossing over the southern border between ports of entry.Judge Jon S. Tigar of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said that a policy announced November 9 barring asylum for immigrants who enter outside a legal check point ‘“irreconcilably conflicts” with immigration law and the “expressed intent of Congress.”“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Tigar wrote, adding that asylum seekers would be put at “increased risk of violence and other harms at the border” if the administration’s rule is allowed to go into effect.

maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 3:11 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 3:11 pm

Typical @golfboy, cannot refute a single one of my statements.  NOT.  ONE.

1.  There is no doubt that simply by the seemingly innocent act of showing a document containing sensitive national security information to his club members at Bedminster, the clown COULD bring harm to the US.
2.Subsection 793(e) does NOT require INTENT.  The word is never used in that subsection, whereas it IS used in subsections (a) and (b)
3. sensitive material carelessly piled into Mar-a-Lago bathrooms and ballroom stages, whether or not the clown thought he had "declassified" them does not make them any less a violation of the Espionage Act as codified in 18 U.S.C. ch. 37(18 U.S.C. § 792 et seq.).

Now if you would LIKE to try to refute those three statements, have at it.

Show us this "document".... link us to the audio... waving a document in the air ... not showing it to them...nothing a cross-examination by lawyers could not shoot down in a heart beat... Remember, you are reciting a one side of the issue presented to a grand jury with no opposing representation and cross examination... Yea, just like the Jan 6 select committee..

jerrab » 26 Jun 2023, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 2:55 pm

https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/alert- ... n-of-daca/

 ALERT
Supreme Court Overturns Trump Administration’s Termination of DACAJUNE 22, 2020On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision finding that the Trump administration’s termination of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was (1) judicially reviewable and (2) done in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[1]Violations of the Administrative Procedure ActIn concluding that the DACA termination violated the APA, the Court reasoned, first, that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to distinguish between the protections from deportation (“forbearance from removal”) and the benefits (such as work authorization) that come with DACA. DHS did not consider whether to retain the protections from deportation even if the benefits were terminated. Second, DHS did not consider the hardship rescission would cause to DACA recipients and its farreaching consequences — and the enormous “reliance interests” at stake. The Court specifically noted the respondents’ words:

And DACA was NEVER a LAW passed by CONGRESS, ****!!

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

 In response to the failure of the DREAM Act legislation to pass both houses of Congress, President Obama initiated the immigration policy known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in 2012.

Now, what you gonna do on THAT one PISSDRINKER BOY??

Beekeeper » 26 Jun 2023, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 4:10 pm

And DACA was NEVER a LAW passed by CONGRESS, ****!!

Now, what you gonna do on THAT one PISSDRINKER BOY??

nara was ****.
 
 

Beekeeper » 26 Jun 2023, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 4:10 pm

And DACA was NEVER a LAW passed by CONGRESS, ****!!

Now, what you gonna do on THAT one PISSDRINKER BOY??

haha
--------------------------------------------

ALERT
Supreme Court Overturns Trump Administration’s Termination of DACA

jerrab » 26 Jun 2023, 3:29 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 3:29 pm

from your link
-----------------------------In an order laced with language accusing President Donald Trump of attempting to rewrite immigration laws, a federal judge based in San Francisco temporarily blocked the government late Monday night from denying asylum to those crossing over the southern border between ports of entry.Judge Jon S. Tigar of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said that a policy announced November 9 barring asylum for immigrants who enter outside a legal check point ‘“irreconcilably conflicts” with immigration law and the “expressed intent of Congress.”“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Tigar wrote, adding that asylum seekers would be put at “increased risk of violence and other harms at the border” if the administration’s rule is allowed to go into effect.

Except Trump wasn't changing any law.  
The law says asylum seekers must do 2 things:  Claim asylum at the first safe country, and enter at a port.
 

maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 3:11 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 3:11 pm

Typical @golfboy, cannot refute a single one of my statements.  NOT.  ONE.

1.  There is no doubt that simply by the seemingly innocent act of showing a document containing sensitive national security information to his club members at Bedminster, the clown COULD bring harm to the US.
2.Subsection 793(e) does NOT require INTENT.  The word is never used in that subsection, whereas it IS used in subsections (a) and (b)
3. sensitive material carelessly piled into Mar-a-Lago bathrooms and ballroom stages, whether or not the clown thought he had "declassified" them does not make them any less a violation of the Espionage Act as codified in 18 U.S.C. ch. 37(18 U.S.C. § 792 et seq.).

Now if you would LIKE to try to refute those three statements, have at it.

I already have.  
Repetition by you, isn't going to change the facts that bitchslapped you.