Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
"DOJ has one big problem with its Trump criminal case, legal expert says"
"DOJ has one big problem with its Trump criminal case, legal expert says"
By roadkill
9 Jun 2023 4:22 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
26 Jun 2023 9:46 pm
In the first 31 counts of the indictment.golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 9:41 pm » wrote: ↑ What sensitive secrets? Tell us those in-depth insights you have about this case.
Why are you dodging the fact that you were dead wrong about ALL of 793 requiring intent?
26 Jun 2023 9:47 pm
What are they? Evidently you're in on the secret.maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 9:46 pm » wrote: ↑ In the first 31 counts of the indictment.
Why are you dodging the fact that you were dead wrong about ALL of 793 requiring intent?
I'm not dodging anything, I proved you wrong with the language of the law, which you hadn't even read.
Room temp.
26 Jun 2023 9:50 pm
So... the substance of your argument is your assertion that three-year-old highly classified documents - according to YOU - are not going to hurt America? You really think that classified information has some sort of an expiration date like a carton of eggs?golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 9:42 pm » wrote: ↑ 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.
Seriously?????
My guess is that Jack Smith will show that that is totally ridiculous .
26 Jun 2023 9:53 pm
I just quoted the subsections of the law which shows that intent IS, in fact, an element of the crime in some sections of 793, but NOT in the sections cited by Jack Smith.golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 9:47 pm » wrote: ↑ What are they? Evidently you're in on the secret.
I'm not dodging anything, I proved you wrong with the language of the law, which you hadn't even read.
Room temp.
Read the first 31 counts of the indictment. I have.
But wait...we KNOW that you are mentally incapable of reading the indictment or the details surrounding the first 31 counts of it.
26 Jun 2023 9:55 pm
26 Jun 2023 9:58 pm
NO INTENT IN 793(e)maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 9:40 pm » wrote: ↑ 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.
@golfboy ????
26 Jun 2023 9:59 pm
golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑ 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.
nope, feel free to find it on your own.
26 Jun 2023 10:01 pm
golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑ 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.
----------------------------------
(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;
26 Jun 2023 10:04 pm
she has already been overruled by the court of appeals.golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑ 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.
she is skating on very thin ice,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-aile ... ents-case/
Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court requesting the appointment of a special master, or independent third party, to review the records recovered by the FBI from Mar-a-Lago, and Cannon presided over the dispute.The judge granted Trump's request for a special master and ordered the Justice Department to temporarily stop using the seized materials for its investigation pending completion of the special master's review.But her ruling was widely criticized by legal experts and upon appeal by the Justice Department, reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in a unanimous ruling. The three-judge panel that reviewed Cannon's decision included two appointed by Trump, Judges Britt Grant and Andrew Beshear.In an earlier stage of the fight over the special master, during which federal prosecutors sought access only to the batch of 103 documents marked classified, the Supreme Court rejected a request by Trump for the special master to have access to the sensitive records. Trump was indicted Thursday on charges involving the retention of national defense information, conspiracy and obstruction.
26 Jun 2023 10:24 pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 9:41 pm » wrote: ↑ What sensitive secrets? Tell us those in-depth insights you have about this case.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-b ... =100256459
Trump also insisted "I have every right to have those boxes" and wrongly said the Presidential Records Act gave him permission to take the government records with him when he left office. (The Presidential Records Act specifically excludes official agency records. Prosecutors wrote in Trump's indictment that he kept documents from U.S. intelligence agencies.)At one point in the interview, Baier referenced the sensitive records that prosecutors say were recovered from Trump, including those about America's military and nuclear capabilities, a foreign country's support of terrorism and information on various foreign militaries.
27 Jun 2023 5:06 am
Only your facts aren't conspiring to convert ancestors eternally separated as specific cycles of compounding chromosome replacements in your alternate reality protecting parallel universes.maineman » 26 Jun 2023, 5:56 pm » wrote: ↑ So...you are saying that not only is Jack Smith lying, but the Trump PAC employee who testified under oath before the grand jury was lying as well?
The Kool-Aid saturation is strong in you @deadskunk! :rofl:
27 Jun 2023 7:15 am
Subsection 793(e) does not even CONTAIN the word intent.golfboy » 26 Jun 2023, 9:47 pm » wrote: ↑ What are they? Evidently you're in on the secret.
I'm not dodging anything, I proved you wrong with the language of the law, which you hadn't even read.
Room temp.
The indictment lists all 31 documents that were mishandled by the clown on pages 28-33 of the indictment.
We both know you could not have possibly read that far.
27 Jun 2023 7:18 am
And @golfboy actually believes that showing those documents around the 19th hole at Bedminster COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause harm to the United States.jerrab » 26 Jun 2023, 10:24 pm » wrote: ↑ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-b ... =100256459
Trump also insisted "I have every right to have those boxes" and wrongly said the Presidential Records Act gave him permission to take the government records with him when he left office. (The Presidential Records Act specifically excludes official agency records. Prosecutors wrote in Trump's indictment that he kept documents from U.S. intelligence agencies.)At one point in the interview, Baier referenced the sensitive records that prosecutors say were recovered from Trump, including those about America's military and nuclear capabilities, a foreign country's support of terrorism and information on various foreign militaries.
No. seriously. He really DOES believe that.
27 Jun 2023 7:18 am
Any brain navigating time when equally inhabiting space will see you interpret life as more than evolving equally here as genetically positioned one of a kind.maineman » 27 Jun 2023, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑ Subsection 793(e) does not even CONTAIN the word intent.
The indictment lists all 31 documents that were mishandled by the clown on pages 28-33 of the indictment.
We both know you could not have possibly read that far.
27 Jun 2023 7:56 pm
Yep, because they were old documents that were never even considered to be exercised.maineman » 27 Jun 2023, 7:18 am » wrote: ↑ And @golfboy actually believes that showing those documents around the 19th hole at Bedminster COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause harm to the United States.
No. seriously. He really DOES believe that.
They are meaningless, and not able to be used to harm America.
*******.
27 Jun 2023 7:58 pm
The word does not have to be explicitly used, *******.maineman » 27 Jun 2023, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑ Subsection 793(e) does not even CONTAIN the word intent.
The indictment lists all 31 documents that were mishandled by the clown on pages 28-33 of the indictment.
We both know you could not have possibly read that far.
You should learn how the english language works.
The fact is you hadn't read the document. You were citing the wrong subsections until I corrected you, and you didn't even know the subsections were cited in the charging documents.
Please stop pretending like you know what's going on, when you're clearly clueless.
**** room temp IQ trying to pretend he's smart.
27 Jun 2023 8:00 pm
That circuit court ruling has nothing to do with the current charges or trial.jerrab » 26 Jun 2023, 10:04 pm » wrote: ↑ she has already been overruled by the court of appeals.
she is skating on very thin ice,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-aile ... ents-case/
Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court requesting the appointment of a special master, or independent third party, to review the records recovered by the FBI from Mar-a-Lago, and Cannon presided over the dispute.The judge granted Trump's request for a special master and ordered the Justice Department to temporarily stop using the seized materials for its investigation pending completion of the special master's review.But her ruling was widely criticized by legal experts and upon appeal by the Justice Department, reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in a unanimous ruling. The three-judge panel that reviewed Cannon's decision included two appointed by Trump, Judges Britt Grant and Andrew Beshear.In an earlier stage of the fight over the special master, during which federal prosecutors sought access only to the batch of 103 documents marked classified, the Supreme Court rejected a request by Trump for the special master to have access to the sensitive records. Trump was indicted Thursday on charges involving the retention of national defense information, conspiracy and obstruction.
And Jack Smith was overturned by SCOTUS in a unanimous 9-0 decision.
27 Jun 2023 8:01 pm
No one has any reason to believe her impartiality should be questioned.jerrab » 26 Jun 2023, 10:01 pm » wrote: ↑ ----------------------------------
(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.(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;
Sorry, but the fact that you dislike her, isn't grounds for her removal. It's just proof that you're a bigot.
27 Jun 2023 8:02 pm
Why do you keep lying like this?
27 Jun 2023 8:22 pm
golfboy » 27 Jun 2023, 8:00 pm » wrote: ↑ That circuit court ruling has nothing to do with the current charges or trial.
And Jack Smith was overturned by SCOTUS in a unanimous 9-0 decision.
the supreme court rejected trump's request.
Who is online
In total there are 3486 users online :: 18 registered, 17 bots, and 3451 guests
Registered users: Vegas, Johnny You, roadkill, Mrkelly, Blackvegetable, Buck Naked, Buffalo, ROG62, RebelGator, *GHETTO BLASTER, MR-7, *Beekeeper, jerra b, murdock, Cannonpointer, Deezer Shoove, 31st Arrival, *Huey
Bots: Pinterest, Feedfetcher-Google, DuckDuckBot, CriteoBot, app.hypefactors.com, proximic, Applebot, ADmantX, semantic-visions.com, Mediapartners-Google, linkfluence.com, YandexBot, curl/7, BLEXBot, Googlebot, GPTBot, bingbot