Liberal Forum

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:27 am

And mainbitch SILL won't admit he didn't know WTF he was talking about.

 you still can't prove me wrong by showing me any INTENT in 793 (e).

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:25 am

Repeating your lie isn't going to make it come true.

it is true.  Intent is not an element of 793 (e).

That subsection does not require that the possessor of the information INTENDED to hurt the United States, only that they had reason to believe it could be used to the injury of the United States.  Intent is required for subsections 793 (a) and (b) only.
 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:25 am

Your statement was about his showing off documents at the golf club. 
Once again, you've been shown to have been spouting ****, without knowing what you're talking about. 

Now of course, you want to regroup and change the subject, instead of just admitting you were wrong.

One of the things he did was show off documents at Bedminster.  That event is described in the indictment.
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:34 am

One of the things he did was show off documents at Bedminster.  That event is described in the indictment.

He was not charged with any crime related to any documents at Bedminster. 
You lied. 
 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 10:12 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:12 am

I have proven you wrong, repeatedly. 
And then you do what you ALWAYS do, just repeat your lie, hoping it will somehow come true.

Again...prove me wrong by simply cutting and pasting the text of 793 (e) and highlighting the word INTENT in that text and I will admit the error of my analysis.

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 10:32 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:32 am

it is true.  Intent is not an element of 793 (e).

That subsection does not require that the possessor of the information INTENDED to hurt the United States, only that they had reason to believe it could be used to the injury of the United States.  Intent is required for subsections 793 (a) and (b) only.

If the documents he showed people at Bedminster could hurt America, why was he not charged with a crime for doing that?
Once again, you got caught talking out our *** about things you know nothing about. 
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:41 am

Again...prove me wrong by simply cutting and pasting the text of 793 (e) and highlighting the word INTENT in that text and I will admit the error of my analysis.

lol.   Mainbitch displaying his complete ignorance of the English language. 
Thinks the word "intent" has to be used.    
 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:41 am

He was not charged with any crime related to any documents at Bedminster. 
You lied.

I never said that any of the 31 documents that form the basis of the indictment were held at Bedminster.  I said that the indictment describes him showing people there classified documents.

Again... I am waiting for the disclosure by you of the INTENT in 793(e) which you have repeatedly stated was included therein.

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 10:43 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:43 am

lol.   Mainbitch displaying his complete ignorance of the English language. 
Thinks the word "intent" has to be used.  

so... intent isn't included in 793 (e)?

Explain how you can require intent as an element of a crime without using the word intent.

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 10:45 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:45 am

so... intent isn't included in 793 (e)?

Explain how you can require intent as an element of a crime without using the word intent.

In the English language, there are these things called synonyms.  
You should take a class. 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:44 am

I never said that any of the 31 documents that form the basis of the indictment were held at Bedminster.  I said that the indictment describes him showing people there classified documents.

 

You're a lying ****. 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:42 am

If the documents he showed people at Bedminster could hurt America, why was he not charged with a crime for doing that?
Once again, you got caught talking out our *** about things you know nothing about.

Jack Smith is keeping the New Jersey charges in his hip pocket in case Judge Cannon throws up roadblocks in the Florida court.

 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 10:53 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:53 am

Jack Smith is keeping the New Jersey charges in his hip pocket in case Judge Cannon throws up roadblocks in the Florida court.

Oh, he told you that, did he?
 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 10:51 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:51 am

In the English language, there are these things called synonyms.  
You should take a class.

I have reason to believe that the loaded handgun on my kitchen table COULD be used to harm a member of my family.

I INTEND to pick up the loaded handgun on my kitchen table and purposely shoot it at my mother-in-law.

Those statements are NOT synonymous.

793(e) only requires that the possessor of classified documents has reason to believe their disclosure could be used to the injury of the United States.
 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:55 am

Oh, he told you that, did he?

I never said he did.
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 10:53 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:53 am

Jack Smith is keeping the New Jersey charges in his hip pocket in case Judge Cannon throws up roadblocks in the Florida court.

It's Biden's dick in Jack's hip pocket.   At least you admit that Jack is conspiring.  Thanx mainemop.     

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:57 am

I never said he did.

I see, so you're just making more **** up, on the fly, because you can't defend your other ignorant claims. 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:56 am

I have reason to believe that the loaded handgun on my kitchen table COULD be used to harm a member of my family.

I INTEND to pick up the loaded handgun on my kitchen table and purposely shoot it at my mother-in-law.

Those statements are NOT synonymous.

793(e) only requires that the possessor of classified documents has reason to believe their disclosure could be used to the injury of the United States.

You can invent absurd analogies all you want. 
Doesn't change the fact that the laws charged against Trump, require his intent to hurt America. 
*******.
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 10:53 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:53 am

Jack Smith is keeping the New Jersey charges in his hip pocket in case Judge Cannon throws up roadblocks in the Florida court.

Sounds a lot like Jack Smith isn't the impartial arbitrator he was sold as, and is more the hired gun everyone knew he was from the outset.

Tell us again how Garland's Gestapo hasn't been weaponized mainstain... after you all but said that it is just now.

 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:01 am

I see, so you're just making more **** up, on the fly, because you can't defend your other ignorant claims.

1.  I am not making anything up.  Bedminster disclosures are described in the indictment.  FACT
2.  Counts 1-31 of the indictment are concerning documents allegedly illegally possessed by ex-President Trump.  FACT
3.  The word "intent" has a very specific meaning when used in legal documents.  FACT
4.  793 (e) does not contain the word "intent".  It does not require the intent to harm the US as an element of the crime described therein.  FACT 
5.  793 (e) only requires that the possessor has reason to believe documents could be used to the injury of the United States.  FACT

6.  Anyone who thinks that highly classified documents, were they to fall - however innocently and inadvertently - into the hands of the wrong people, could NOT be used to harm the US is dumber than a box of rocks.   OPINION