Liberal Forum

maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 7:32 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 7:32 pm

you've been there...but you NEVER refuted any of those points.  

word soup.  gets you every time!    

**** brain-damaged retard.

Don't forget I offered to go easy on your reading disability years ago if you'd just quit being such a prick.  I offered YOU an olive branch and you broke it off.  RETARDO!!!!        

Your belief that I have any reading disability is just another lie you tell, because you have no honor. 
I don't want any "olive branch" with someone is dishonest and ignorant as you, room temp. 

Keep repeating yourself, it's not my fault you ignored my debunking of your talking points.  I don't give a ****. 
 

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 7:51 pm

Your belief that I have any reading disability is just another lie you tell, because you have no honor. 
I don't want any "olive branch" with someone is dishonest and ignorant as you, room temp. 

Keep repeating yourself, it's not my fault you ignored my debunking of your talking points.  I don't give a ****.

three pretty unambiguous points.  you run away from all three.

Again... can you find the word "intent" in 793(e)?

maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 7:55 pm

three pretty unambiguous points.  you run away from all three.

Again... can you find the word "intent" in 793(e)?

lol.  ^^ bitch didn't even know Trump was charged under (e) until I showed him. 
You know NOTHING about this case, except your hatred of Trump consumes you. 
 

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 8:05 pm

lol.  ^^ bitch didn't even know Trump was charged under (e) until I showed him. 
You know NOTHING about this case, except your hatred of Trump consumes you.

nice dodge.  Of course I knew he was charged.  YOu claimed that ALL of 793 requires intent.  It does not.  You're stupid, and you're stubborn, and you have NO honor.

maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 8:08 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 8:08 pm

nice dodge.  Of course I knew he was charged.  YOu claimed that ALL of 793 requires intent.  It does not.  You're stupid, and you're stubborn, and you have NO honor.

I'm not dodging anything. I'm laughing at the FACT that you didn't even know the facts of the case. 

BTW, did you hear Judge Cannon just bitch slapped Jack Smith?
Smith wanted to keep the witness list sealed so that Trump, nor the American people would even know who might testify.
The judge was having none of it.   

 

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 8:14 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 8:14 pm

I'm not dodging anything. I'm laughing at the FACT that you didn't even know the facts of the case. 

BTW, did you hear Judge Cannon just bitch slapped Jack Smith?
Smith wanted to keep the witness list sealed so that Trump, nor the American people would even know who might testify.
The judge was having none of it. 

I know all the facts in this case.  I know that 793(e) does not require intent and I know that you have stated all along that ALL of 793 requires intent.

Dodge that.  Again... YOU claimed that 793 requires intent, but cannot show us where that word even appears in the subsection cited by Smith.

Admit you **** up

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 8:14 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 8:14 pm

I'm not dodging anything. I'm laughing at the FACT that you didn't even know the facts of the case. 

BTW, did you hear Judge Cannon just bitch slapped Jack Smith?
Smith wanted to keep the witness list sealed so that Trump, nor the American people would even know who might testify.
The judge was having none of it. 

no big surprise

---------------------------------------------------------------

Cannon’s thin resume, combined with her surprisingly deferential rulings to Trump — who appointed her in November 2020 — in a civil lawsuit challenging the FBI raid of his Mar-a-Lago estate last year, have raised questions about her readiness for the complexities of the first-ever federal prosecution of a former president. Prosecutors say he hoarded national military secrets at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving office and concealed them from government officials seeking to recover them

 

maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 8:16 pm

I know all the facts in this case.  I know that 793(e) does not require intent and I know that you have stated all along that ALL of 793 requires intent.

Dodge that.  Again... YOU claimed that 793 requires intent, but cannot show us where that word even appears in the subsection cited by Smith.

Admit you **** up

Really?  Why did you claim the charging document didn't name the subsections of the law used against Trump, and why you kept referring other sections of the law?
 
And you're wrong about subsection (e), just like you're wrong about everything.
It contains the exact same language.   Or are you reading the old, outdated version again?

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; 
 
 
 

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 8:14 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 8:14 pm

I'm not dodging anything. I'm laughing at the FACT that you didn't even know the facts of the case. 

BTW, did you hear Judge Cannon just bitch slapped Jack Smith?
Smith wanted to keep the witness list sealed so that Trump, nor the American people would even know who might testify.
The judge was having none of it. 

she should rescuse herself or ger disbarred

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/prof ... cation/(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
 

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 8:23 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 8:23 pm

Really?  Why did you claim the charging document didn't name the sections of the law used against Trump, and why you kept referring other sections of the law?

Why are you dodging my question?

You claimed that 793(e) required intent.  It does not.  The indictment lists that subsection and it does NOT require intent.  I always referred to the Espionage Act in its entirety.  793(e) is the one Smith chose,  You were wrong about it.   Smith has solid evidence that the clown violated that section.  31 counts of evidence 

maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 8:29 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 8:29 pm

Why are you dodging my question?

You claimed that 793(e) required intent.  It does not.  The indictment lists that subsection and it does NOT require intent.  I always referred to the Espionage Act in its entirety.  793(e) is the one Smith chose,  You were wrong about it.   Smith has solid evidence that the clown violated that section.  31 counts of evidence

Dodging?  Look up 3 posts, bitch.   Answered and shows subsection (e) does in fact, require intent. 
**** you're stupid. 
Room temp IQ.     

 
 

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 8:14 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 8:14 pm

I'm not dodging anything. I'm laughing at the FACT that you didn't even know the facts of the case. 

BTW, did you hear Judge Cannon just bitch slapped Jack Smith?
Smith wanted to keep the witness list sealed so that Trump, nor the American people would even know who might testify.
The judge was having none of it. 

she should recuse herself. it won't be long before the bar association disbars her for life.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/prof ... on/%28A%29

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 8:14 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 8:14 pm

I'm not dodging anything. I'm laughing at the FACT that you didn't even know the facts of the case. 

BTW, did you hear Judge Cannon just bitch slapped Jack Smith?
Smith wanted to keep the witness list sealed so that Trump, nor the American people would even know who might testify.
The judge was having none of it. 

she should recuse herself.

----------------------------------
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.(2) The judge knows* that the judge, the judge’s spouse or domestic partner,* or a person within the third degree of relationship* to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is:
  (a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party;

golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 8:42 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 8:42 pm

Dodging?  Look up 3 posts, bitch.   Answered and shows subsection (e) does in fact, require intent. 
**** you're stupid. 
Room temp IQ.

the section does not require intent. 

There is a difference between,

"I have these highly sensitive documents and I INTEND to give them to my friend Boris Badanova and his wife Nastasha so that they can use them to harm the United States"

and 

"So here are these cool documents, and you are one of the guys who is raising money for me, and even though I know, in the back of my head, that, if this information got into the WRONG hands, it COULD cause harm to the United States. in an effort to impress the **** out of you, and hopefully get you to raise even more money for me, I am gonna let you have a look at them, because, even though you don't have a security clearance and you don't have a NEED to know this information, I am going to show it to you anyway because you'll think it's cool."

Trump did not do the first.  He DID do something closely mirroring the second and THAT is a violation of 793(e)... and that is what the PAC official told Jack Smith in his grand jury testimony and what he will tell the jury in the criminal trial.

.
 
 

maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 9:25 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 9:25 pm

the section does not require intent. 

Yes it does, and it doesn't matter how many times you claim otherwise.
You didn't even know what subsection(e) said, just like you didn't know the subsections were listed in the charging document. 

You're a **** mindless tool. 
 

jerrab » 26 Jun 2023, 9:14 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 9:14 pm

she should recuse herself. it won't be long before the bar association disbars her for life.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/prof ... on/%28A%29

Your link doesn't work, but I'm not surprised you would want to silence anyone who you can't control. 
It's who liberals are. 
 

793(a) ...with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,
793(b)  Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, 
793(c)  Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid (note that intent is missing)
793(d)  which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States (note that intent and purpose is missing) 
793(e)  which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States (note that intent and purpose is missing)

Again... I say, even brain-dead Donald Trump had to have reason to believe that revealing sensitive secrets to Bedminster Golf Club patrons without security clearances and without the need to know that sensitive information COULD BE USED to the injury of the United States.
 
 

maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 9:40 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 9:40 pm

793(a) ...with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,
793(b)  Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, 
793(c)  Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid (note that intent is missing)
793(d)  which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States (note that intent and purpose is missing) 
793(e)  which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States (note that intent and purpose is missing)

Again... I say, even brain-dead Donald Trump had to have reason to believe that revealing sensitive secrets to Bedminster Golf Club patrons without security clearances and without the need to know that sensitive information COULD BE USED to the injury of the United States.

anytime you wanna refute those quotes, @golfboy  ??
 

maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 9:40 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 9:40 pm

793(a) ...with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,
793(b)  Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, 
793(c)  Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid (note that intent is missing)
793(d)  which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States (note that intent is missing) 
793(e)  which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States (note that intent is missing)

Again... I say, even brain-dead Donald Trump had to have reason to believe that revealing sensitive secrets to Bedminster Golf Club patrons without security clearances and without the need to know that sensitive information COULD BE USED to the injury of the United States.

What sensitive secrets?   Tell us those in-depth insights you have about this case.   

 

maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 9:41 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023, 9:41 pm

anytime you wanna refute those quotes, @golfboy  ??

It's not my fault you are claiming knowledge you don't have. 
Tell us what 3 year old documents are going to do to hurt America.   I can't wait to hear this.