Liberal Forum

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:07 am

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 hard the US is dumber than a box of rocks.   OPINION

You just said that Jack 3 Sticks is holding on to New Jersey charges in case he loses in Florida. 
Then you admitting you have no knowledge of that. 

That's what is called "making it up", room temp.

 

RedheadedStranger » 28 Jun 2023, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:03 am

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.

 

 

I'm actually surprised that Trump's lawyers haven't submitted a demand for the trial to be dismissed with prejudice. 
Prosecutorial misconduct and tainting the jury pool. 

 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 11:10 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:10 am

You just said that Jack 3 Sticks is holding on to New Jersey charges in case he loses in Florida. 
Then you admitting you have no knowledge of that. 

That's what is called "making it up", room temp.

I listen to the news.  Nice job at avoiding the first five facts. dyslexic retard.

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

28 Jun 2023, 11:11 am

I'm actually surprised that Trump's lawyers haven't submitted a demand for the trial to be dismissed with prejudice. 
Prosecutorial misconduct and tainting the jury pool.

793(e)   "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States"

intent???? not there. 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:07 am

1.  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

Just the facts, @golfboy    Put on your big boy pants and refute them.
 

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

28 Jun 2023, 10:28 am

There is nothing corrupt about prosecuting the clown for violations of the law regarding gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.

What did he do to harm America?

 

Then you  have to go after Biden, Pence, Clinton, Obama and all the other members of congress who did the exact same thing. The problem is you wont because you don't care about justice. You care about taking a political opponent out by using the power of the government. That is UNAMERICAN. 

IMHO, he:
1.  nearly destroyed our relationships with our NATO allies.
2. severely weakened our ability to work cooperatively with our allies on the Pacific Rim, South Korea in particular
3.  twiddled his thumbs while COVID swept through the land, always treating it like a political public relations issue rather than a nonpartisan public health  emergency,
4. totally **** up SCOTUS

1.  NATO needs to pay their fair share. They have been living off our power for far too long. He did the right thing. 
2. No he didn't.
3. No one was going to stop COVID. Trying to blame him is like trying to blame water for being wet. It was just going to happen. And as we now know, nothing we did made any difference in stopping COVID. The masks did NOT work. The jab did not do what they said it did, which was keep you from spreading COVID. It is complete **** you even try to blame Trump for his role in responding to it. The thing I blame him for is all the money he spent in trying to stop covid. It was all for nothing.
4. No he didn't. You just don't agree with them politically. You only want liberals on the court. I like that we have a mix on the court, so we can balance out each side. 



 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:16 am

Just the facts, @golfboy    Put on your big boy pants and refute them.

I have refuted them all, repeatedly. 
It's not my fault you either don't read, or you don't comprehend what you DO read. 
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:13 am

793(e)   "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States"

intent???? not there.

Tell us how declassified documents, under the guard of the Secret Service, could be used to the injury of the United States. 
I can't wait to hear this. 
 

RayJJohnson » 28 Jun 2023, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:16 am

Then you  have to go after Biden, Pence, Clinton, Obama and all the other members of congress who did the exact same thing. The problem is you wont because you don't care about justice. You care about taking a political opponent out by using the power of the government. That is UNAMERICAN. 

1.  NATO needs to pay their fair share. They have been living off our power for far too long. He did the right thing. 
2. No he didn't.
3. No one was going to stop COVID. Trying to blame him is like trying to blame water for being wet. It was just going to happen. And as we now know, nothing we did made any difference in stopping COVID. The masks did NOT work. The jab did not do what they said it did, which was keep you from spreading COVID. It is complete **** you even try to blame Trump for his role in responding to it. The thing I blame him for is all the money he spent in trying to stop covid. It was all for nothing.
4. No he didn't. You just don't agree with them politically. You only want liberals on the court. I like that we have a mix on the court, so we can balance out each side.

Re documents:  NONE of those other people refused to return documents when they were asked to do so.  NONE of those other people waved classified documents around in a golf course club house.  NONE of those other people bragged about them.
Re: NATO...we'll have to agree to disagree.
Re:  South Korea.  How is unilaterally agreeing to STOP holding joint exercises with one of our main allies in the Pacific Rim not a diminishment of our capability in the region?
Re:  COVID.    two words:  Diamond Princess
Re:  SCOTUS  If Obama should not have been allowed to replace Scalia, Trump should not have been allowed to replace Ginsburg.

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 11:12 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:12 am

I listen to the news.  Nice job at avoiding the first five facts. dyslexic retard.

Too bad you evidently listen to "news" sources that keep you ignorant, uninformed, and compliant. 
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:23 am

Re documents:  NONE of those other people refused to return documents when they were asked to do so.  
 

Clinton did. 
Did you not know that, or are you just lying again?
 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:23 am

Tell us how declassified documents, under the guard of the Secret Service, could be used to the injury of the United States. 
I can't wait to hear this.

Do you think the Secret Service was standing guard at the bathroom or surrounding the ballroom stage during every wedding reception?

The ex-President was under the guard of the Secret Service, not the Mar-a-Lago ballroom during a wedding reception when the clown was off in Bedminster.

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:24 am

Clinton did. 
Did you not know that, or are you just lying again?

still waiting on the intent in 793(e)

are you avoiding that?


And if anyone wants to throw Hillary or Bill in prison, I have no dog in that fight.

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:24 am

Too bad you evidently listen to "news" sources that keep you ignorant, uninformed, and compliant.

you asked a question, I gave you my opinion as to why the indictment was focused on Florida issues and not New Jersey ones.

again...793 (e).... "intent" to harm the US versus  "has reason to believe could be used" to harm the US.

you ever gonna address that?

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 11:30 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:30 am

you asked a question, I gave you my opinion as to why the indictment was focused on Florida issues and not New Jersey ones.

again...793 (e).... "intent" to harm the US versus  "has reason to believe could be used" to harm the US.

you ever gonna address that?

You made **** up, trying to cover up a previous lie, and you got caught AGAIN. 
It's a day ending in "Y", right?
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:28 am

still waiting on the intent in 793(e)

are you avoiding that?

And if anyone wants to throw Hillary or Bill in prison, I have no dog in that fight.

Why would I once again explain to you the literal word "intent" doesn't have to be used in the English language, for the meaning of the law requiring intent?
And I only brought up Clinton, because you once again, lied. 
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 11:26 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 11:26 am

Do you think the Secret Service was standing guard at the bathroom or surrounding the ballroom stage during every wedding reception?

The ex-President was under the guard of the Secret Service, not the Mar-a-Lago ballroom during a wedding reception when the clown was off in Bedminster.

Mar a Lago is under Secret Service protection, because the ex-President lives there, *******. 
No one goes in, or out, without the SS vetting them. 

The fact is that the Florida FBI opposed the Mar a Lago raid, because Trump WAS cooperating with them. 
The DoJ and D.C. FBI overruled and did the raid on their own.   That just doesn't happen, until now.
But I'm sure you were ignorant of that too. 
 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 12:46 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 12:46 pm

Mar a Lago is under Secret Service protection, because the ex-President lives there, *******. 
No one goes in, or out, without the SS vetting them. 

The fact is that the Florida FBI opposed the Mar a Lago raid, because Trump WAS cooperating with them. 
The DoJ and D.C. FBI overruled and did the raid on their own.   That just doesn't happen, until now.
But I'm sure you were ignorant of that too.

****. it's a wedding venue.  If the clown isn't in town, the wedding parties are swarming all over the place and the bathrooms and ballroom stage certainly aren't under constant Secret Service Protection.

Oh, and what you are telling me is that if a Federal Prosecutor directs the FBI to execute a search warrant, they can say no?

And tell me again, where did you go to law school, Doc?  

Still waiting on the 793 (e) intent quote.

Aw...heck with it... here... I am gonna post the entire text of that subsection and all you need to do is to quote this post of mine and highlight that passage.

(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; or

I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.  

 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 12:41 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 12:41 pm

Why would I once again explain to you the literal word "intent" doesn't have to be used in the English language, for the meaning of the law requiring intent?
 

sez the non-lawyer.

INTENT is specified in two of the subsections of 793.  Purpose is specified in three sections of 793.  Neither is in (e).

Again... I just quoted the whole subsection for you. Show me what you think means INTENT to cause harm to the US.

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 12:40 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 12:40 pm

You made **** up, trying to cover up a previous lie, and you got caught AGAIN. 
It's a day ending in "Y", right?

I didn't make anything up. I have heard A least a dozen different opinions on various news channels that all came to that same conclusion.

so... gonna highlight that INTENT in 793 (e)?