Liberal Forum

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:11 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:11 pm

If they have evidence and bring it forward after he leaves office, let the chips fall where they may. I will have no dog in that fight.

I think that the law is pretty clear that showing a classified battle plan map to a political action committee official without a security clearance is a violation of the Espionage Act section 1(d).

Nope.  Bring it now, and throw his *** in jail now. 
NO one is above the law, right mainbitch?

And what you think is irrelevant.  How did he intend to hurt America with that action, if it occurred?
 
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:00 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:00 pm

A couple of points for the legally illiterate:

The Espionage Act does not have a Title 1.  So...you're a dyslexic moronic idiot...but moving along....  
It does have a section 1, and, in subsections 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c), INTENT is required. In section 1(d), however, it is not.

My guess is... you never were able to read that far without drowning in the word soup, eh?

I just showed you it does with a screen print of the law.   I even circled it for you.
You really are a supid ****, aren't you? 

 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:10 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:10 pm

I have read both.  They clearly don't say what you seem to think... but we don't actually know what you think, becuase you've never said what either of those sources say. 

You read or heard someone say something on msLSD, and you fell for it.

He showed an official of a Trump PAC a classified MAP related to a US military operation.  Section 1(d) clearly and unambiguously says that whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan,  MAP, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence...

roadkill » 09 Jun 2023, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2023, 4:22 pm

Before you watch the video remember...Biden had classified docs EVERYWHERE...and likely still does.

Hillary was subpoenaed to turn over emails, etc.  She wiped her illegal server and smashed cell phones to hide her crimes.

Remember when the left cried out about that?  Me neither.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pipp4MvN_c0

You mean besides the fact that it's all ****?

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:15 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:15 pm

He showed an official of a Trump PAC a classified MAP related to a US military operation.  Section 1(d) clearly and unambiguously says that whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan,  MAP, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence...

So what?   Was this from 2 or 3 years ago, which has no military value now?
And again, Title 1, Section 1 says he has to have INTENT to harm America. 

How is Jack Smith going to prove that was the case? 
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:11 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:11 pm

Nope.  Bring it now, and throw his *** in jail now. 
NO one is above the law, right mainbitch?

And what you think is irrelevant.  How did he intend to hurt America with that action, if it occurred?

it was the DoJ's position that they would NOT indict a sitting president that kept the clown from being indicted by Mueller. 

goose...gander

And I think intent is irrelevant to section 1(d) because it specifically does not mention intent, as subsections 1(a)(b)and (c) do

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:16 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:16 pm

So what?   Was this from 2 or 3 years ago, which has no military value now?
And again, Title 1, Section 1 says he has to have INTENT to harm America. 

How is Jack Smith going to prove that was the case?

1(d) does not require intent.

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:11 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:11 pm

Wait... wait...   a "recollection"?     
No actual EVIDENCE?

eyewitness testimony of a PAC official recounting a discussion at Bedminster.  That IS evidence.

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:16 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:16 pm

So what?   Was this from 2 or 3 years ago, which has no military value now?
And again, Title 1, Section 1 says he has to have INTENT to harm America. 

How is Jack Smith going to prove that was the case?

The real problem here is the application of the Act.....it's analogous to a State Trooper stopping you for exceeding the speed limit and walks up to your car and shoots you in the head.....shades of  the 1/6 political persecution. 
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:19 pm

it was the DoJ's position that they would NOT indict a sitting president that kept the clown from being indicted by Mueller. 

goose...gander

And I think intent is irrelevant to section 1(d) because it specifically does not mention intent, as subsections 1(a)(b)and (c) do

Nope.  That's all out the window now.   
No one is above the law, right mainbitch?

Intent isn't irrelevant.  It's literally the first thing in the law, and it applies to EVERYTHING. 
*******.
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:21 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:21 pm

eyewitness testimony of a PAC official recounting a discussion at Bedminster.  That IS evidence.

No, that's an allegation.   The map would be evidence. 

 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:20 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:20 pm

1(d) does not require intent.

Link?  Where does the law say "Intent no longer matters to the rest of this law"?     
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:25 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:25 pm

Link?  Where does the law say "Intent no longer matters to the rest of this law"?   

intent is stated in 1(a)"whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation
and in 1(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent 

and in 1(c)whoever, for the purpose aforesaid....

1(d) makes no such mention of purpose OR intent

1(e) makes no mention of purpose or intent and, instead, states that mere gross negligence is enough to violate the act.

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:24 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:24 pm

No, that's an allegation.   The map would be evidence.

So... you are saying that sworn testimony as to the content of conversations is NOT admissible evidence?  

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 6:40 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:40 pm

Link?
As usual, you're completely backward from the truth. 
It takes FOUR judges to decide if they want to hear a case, regardless how many vote.

You don't know anything about how our government works, do you?

so it was not five but SIX justices who agreed that the defense attorney's motion had no merit.

             

 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:48 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:48 pm

so it was not five but SIX justices who agreed that the defense attorney's motion had no merit.

           

OMG.  This moron can't read. 
Does the stupid hurt mainbitch because it looks REAL painful from here. 
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:42 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:42 pm

intent is stated in 1(a)"whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation
and in 1(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent 

and in 1(c)whoever, for the purpose aforesaid....

1(d) makes no such mention of purpose OR intent

1(e) makes no mention of purpose or intent and, instead, states that mere gross negligence is enough to violate the act.

Doesn't matter if d and e mention intent or not. 
The law requires intent to harm the United States.  

How is Jack going to prove that intent?
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:50 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:50 pm

hou
OMG.  This moron can't read. 
Does the stupid hurt mainbitch because it looks REAL painful from here.

four needed to grant cert... after reviewing the case for a month with their staffs, they met and decided to NOT grant cert...which means that not five but SIX justices agreed with the lower courts in finding the defense attorney's plea was without merit.

Prosecutor VINDICATED.  CASE DISMISSED!!!

bitchslapping the moron doesn't hurt ME a bit!
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:53 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:53 pm

four needed to grant cert... after reviewing the case for a month with their staffs, they met and decided to NOT grant cert...which means that not five but SIX justices agreed with the lower courts in finding the defense attorney's plea was without merit.

Prosecutor VINDICATED.  CASE DISMISSED!!!

bitchslapping the moron doesn't hurt ME a bit!

No *******.  All judges don't need or have to vote. 
My God man, you really ARE that stupid, aren't you?
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:44 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:44 pm

So... you are saying that sworn testimony as to the content of conversations is NOT admissible evidence?

Of course it's admissible.  A "recollection" is easily contradicted by anyone else, like Trump.