Liberal Forum

again...to review the bidding:

793 (a) starts with: Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States,
793(b) starts with: Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent
793 (c) starts with:  Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid,  (NO INTENT)
793 (d) starts with: Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, (no purpose to harm the US, no intent to harm the US)
793 (e) - THE ONE IN THE INDICTMENT - starts with:  Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document,  (No intent no purpose to harm the US)
793(f) starts with:  Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.  (no purpose, no intent...merely gross negligence)

and any violator of any of those six subsections Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. 
 

Mic drop
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 1:01 pm

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)?

Sure you did.  And we have YOUR word for that, which we all know is meaningless. 

 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 10:16 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 10:16 am

transference.

I have proven to you that intent is not in the subsection named in the indictment.  I have shown you that it IS listed in other sections not cited in the indictment.

You should actually prove me wrong and not just falsely claim that you already have.

Simply stated, having a reason to believe that something might damage the United States is not the same as having the intent to damage the United States.

The PROBLEM you have here Captain CUMBREATH is that Trump was FULLY AUTHORIZED AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF to LAWFULLY POSSESS any documents he had. PERIOD!!

So your little section (e) DOES NOT APPLY IN ANY SHAPE FORM OR MANNER!!

Now that has to suck for you, huh, ****??? Still PIMPING OUT THAT NASTY DISEASED WHORE DAUGHTER OF YOURS?? Did you get her those VD shots yet??
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 12:59 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 12:59 pm

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.

Ah, now mainbitch is claiming to be a lawyer.     
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 12:57 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 12:57 pm

****. 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.

Yes.  The Secret Service is responsible for security at Mar a Lago, 24/7/365. 
I can't help your ignorance, I've tried to educate you before. 

And why are you making fun of me for not going to law school.   You didn't either, so you're only making fun of yourself.   Room temp.
 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 1:20 pm

Yes.  The Secret Service is responsible for security at Mar a Lago, 24/7/365. 
I can't help your ignorance, I've tried to educate you before. 

And why are you making fun of me for not going to law school.   You didn't either, so you're only making fun of yourself.   Room temp.

and I am saying that the secret service is not guarding the stage in the ballroom in the middle of a wedding reception.  And they do not VET every person who got an invitation to that wedding reception.

Intent in 793(e)?

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 1:18 pm

Ah, now mainbitch is claiming to be a lawyer.   

you can't read.  I am not a lawyer.  I did father one and was fathered by one so the lawyer genes obviously passed on.    

793(e)

Intent?

Any luck?

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 1:17 pm

Sure you did.  And we have YOUR word for that, which we all know is meaningless.

I didn't make it up.  It was all over the cable channels.  I merely repeated a pretty reasonable-sounding opinion by some folks who were in the business of understanding special prosecutors.

793 (e)?

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 1:29 pm

I didn't make it up.  It was all over the cable channels.  I merely repeated a pretty reasonable-sounding opinion by some folks who were in the business of understanding special prosecutors.

793 (e)?

Oh, you mean another Trump msLSD conspiracy theory.
 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 1:27 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 1:27 pm

you can't read.  I am not a lawyer.  I did father one and was fathered by one so the lawyer genes obviously passed on.    

793(e)

Intent?

Any luck?

Clearly you got left out of the brains in the family. 

 

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 1:26 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 1:26 pm

and I am saying that the secret service is not guarding the stage in the ballroom in the middle of a wedding reception.  And they do not VET every person who got an invitation to that wedding reception.

Show us ANYTHING to back up that claim. 
 

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 2:10 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 2:10 pm

Clearly you got left out of the brains in the family.

still nothing on that intent passage?  I gave you the complete text.  what IS the delay here?  

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 2:10 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 2:10 pm

Clearly you got left out of the brains in the family.

cuz people with no brains get accepted at service academies all the time, don't they?

you?  you went to a cult "medical" school and didn't even study medicine.  Did they teach you AC&R repair at Loma Linda?  

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 2:13 pm

cuz people with no brains get accepted at service academies all the time, don't they?

you?  you went to a cult "medical" school and didn't even study medicine.  Did they teach you AC&R repair at Loma Linda?

You are a **** liar

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 2:11 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 2:11 pm

Show us ANYTHING to back up that claim.

https://radaronline.com/p/donald-trump- ... -call-log/
show me anything to refute it.
 
https://www.biasly.com/sources/radaronline-bias-rating/

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 2:13 pm

cuz people with no brains get accepted at service academies all the time, don't they?

you?  you went to a cult "medical" school and didn't even study medicine.  Did they teach you AC&R repair at Loma Linda?

mainemop voted for Biden...'nough said.   

maineman » 28 Jun 2023, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 2:14 pm

https://radaronline.com/p/donald-trump- ... -call-log/
show me anything to refute it.

a biased liberal site... too **** funny

golfboy » 28 Jun 2023, 2:09 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Jun 2023, 2:09 pm

Oh, you mean another Trump msLSD conspiracy theory.

I mean I didn't make it up.

and I would love for you to show me any link that says that the Secret Service is tasked with guarding Mar-a-Lago 24/7 and vetting all the attendees of all the wedding receptions and retirement dinners and senior proms that get held there during the summer months when the ex-President is in New Jersey full time.

edit:  Seriously, the more I think about this the funnier it gets.  Do you honestly think that Secret Service encamped at Rancho del Cielo when Reagan wasn't there - even when he was president, let alone after he'd left?  Do you honestly think that they encamped at Prairie Chapel Ranch when Dubya wasn't there?  I know for a FACT that Walker Point was empty except for caretakers when GHWB and Barbara left it vacant all winter.
 

mainemantrump's » 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?

trump's legal defense is always the same- but but what about hillary? but but what about biden?