Liberal Forum

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:57 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:57 pm

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

so it is evidence?  I thought you just said it wasn't?

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:59 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:59 pm

so it is evidence?  I thought you just said it wasn't?

Any claim can be made.  And simple claims can be contradicted by another simple claim. 
Real evidence is factual and supportable. 
You've got nothing. 
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:56 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:56 pm

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

They were all present at a Judicial conference.  They denied Cert after the case had been put on the docket the month before.  Prosecutor vindicated.  Case closed.  Golfboy wrong.

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 8:00 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:00 pm

Any claim can be made.  And simple claims can be contradicted by another simple claim. 
Real evidence is factual and supportable. 
You've got nothing.

^^^ sez the dyslexic moron who has not read Smith's indictment.

funny stuff.

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 8:02 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:02 pm

^^^ sez the dyslexic moron who has not read Smith's indictment.

funny stuff.

Back to making **** up because he can't support his claims. 
How unusual.   
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 8:01 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:01 pm

They were all present at a Judicial conference.  

lol.   Now he's making **** up again. 
Provide a link for that claim.   
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:51 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:51 pm

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?

WRONG!
ONLY 1(a) and 1(b) require intent.

(a) requires intent if gathering national defense information by flying over or entering bases ships and military facilities
(b) requires intent if copying or obtaining or inducing other to copy or obtaining documents concerning national defense.
(c)  does not require intent but only the purpose of obtaining information concerning our national defense if they induce or aid others in obtaining such information.
(d) does not require intent or purpose but merely the actions of transmitting or communicating national defense information.
(e) does not require intent or purpose but only the release of national defense information through gross negligence.

No need to prove intent.  He transmitted it and he allowed non-authorized individuals access to it through his gross negligence, and he failed to return those documents to their rightful owners when requested.

BOOMCHACALAKA!  

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 8:03 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:03 pm

lol.   Now he's making **** up again. 
Provide a link for that claim.

Who cares?  The judicial conference of SCOTUS, after having over a month to review the documents of the defense attorney's petition, DENIED that petition which means they agreed with the decisions of the trial judge, appeals court judge, Maine Supreme Court AND the US First Circuit Court of Appeals who ALL said that there was no violation of the Batson rule.  Prosecutor VINDICATED.  Case CLOSED.  @golfboy  nose bloodied!    

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:16 pm

WRONG!
ONLY 1(a) and 1(b) require intent.

(a) requires intent if gathering national defense information by flying over or entering bases ships and military facilities
(b) requires intent if copying or obtaining or inducing other to copy or obtaining documents concerning national defense.
(c)  does not require intent but only the purpose of obtaining information concerning our national defense if they induce or aid others in obtaining such information.
(d) does not require intent or purpose but merely the actions of transmitting or communicating national defense information.
(e) does not require intent or purpose but only the release of national defense information through gross negligence.

No need to prove intent.  He transmitted it and he allowed non-authorized individuals access to it through his gross negligence, and he failed to return those documents to their rightful owners when requested.

BOOMCHACALAKA!

Why is it that when you're wrong, you just keep repeating yourself, as if that's suddenly going to change fact?
Room Temp IQ. 
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 8:02 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:02 pm

Back to making **** up because he can't support his claims. 
How unusual. 

it's gonna be tough for the clown to argue against an audiotape!    

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:20 pm

Who cares?  The judicial conference of SCOTUS, after having over a month to review the documents of the defense attorney's petition, DENIED that petition which means they agreed with the decisions of the trial judge, appeals court judge, Maine Supreme Court AND the US First Circuit Court of Appeals who ALL said that there was no violation of the Batson rule.  Prosecutor VINDICATED.  Case CLOSED.  @golfboy  nose bloodied!  

You just make **** up, and then say "who cares" when you are called out for lying. 
It's stunning how **** stupid you are. 
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:20 pm

Why is it that when you're wrong, you just keep repeating yourself, as if that's suddenly going to change fact?
Room Temp IQ.

what is wrong about what I said?  I correctly dissected each of the first five subsections of Section 1 of the Espionage Act.  You've never read past section 1(a)

 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 8:21 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:21 pm

You just make **** up, and then say "who cares" when you are called out for lying. 
It's stunning how **** stupid you are.

Did I make up the ruling of the trial judge? Y/N

Did I make up the ruling of the appeals court judge? Y/N

Did I make up the ruling of the Maine State Supreme Court? Y/N

Did I make up the ruling of the US First District Court of Appeals? Y/N

Did I make up the decision of the judicial conference of SCOTUS who, after putting the case on their docket, and taking more than a month to review it along with their law clerks, decided to NOT hear the case? Y/N

Be a man and answer those five yes or no questions without tap dancing.

I dare you, you **** gutless ******.

Go.

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 8:27 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:27 pm

Did I make up the ruling of the trial judge? Y/N

Did I make up the ruling of the appeals court judge? Y/N

Did I make up the ruling of the Maine State Supreme Court? Y/N

Did I make up the ruling of the US First District Court of Appeals? Y/N

Did I make up the decision of the judicial conference of SCOTUS who, after putting the case on their docket, and taking more than a month to review it along with their law clerks, decided to NOT hear the case? Y/N

Be a man and answer those five yes or no questions without tap dancing.

I dare you, you **** gutless ******.

Go.

You claimed SCOTUS agreed with your racist daughter.  They did no such thing. 
N
N
N
N
Y
You claimed 5 or more judged voted to agree with here.   A "fact" you invented out of thin air. 
Unlike you, I have honor.  You have none, you **** gutless ******.

 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 8:23 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:23 pm

what is wrong about what I said?  I correctly dissected each of the first five subsections of Section 1 of the Espionage Act.  You've never read past section 1(a)

You claimed intent is not required, yet it's the very first thing the law states. 
And you're a **** gutless ****** with a room temp IQ. 
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 8:46 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:46 pm

You claimed intent is not required, yet it's the very first thing the law states. 
And you're a **** gutless ****** with a room temp IQ.

Intent is required for the very actions specified in the first two sub-articles  Can you read?

Do you think, for example, that for someone to be grossly negligent they need to intend to be grossly negligent?  If so, wouldn't that make everyone guilty of manslaughter a murderer?

Really.  YOU have not read beyond the first sub-article.  BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 9:20 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:20 pm

Intent is required for the very actions specified in the first two sub-articles  Can you read?

Do you think, for example, that for someone to be grossly negligent they need to intend to be grossly negligent?  If so, wouldn't that make everyone guilty of manslaughter a murderer?

Really.  YOU have not read beyond the first sub-article.  BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

Still waiting for you to show me where it says intent is NOT required for the law, when I've shown you it is. 
*******. 

 
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 8:45 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:45 pm

You claimed SCOTUS agreed with your racist daughter.  They did no such thing. 
N
N
N
N
Y
You claimed 5 or more judged voted to agree with here.   A "fact" you invented out of thin air. 
Unlike you, I have honor.  You have none, you **** gutless ******.

Did I make up the decision of the judicial conference of SCOTUS who, after putting the case on their docket, and taking more than a month to review it along with their law clerks, decided to NOT hear the case? Y/N

AND YOU SAID I MADE THAT UP, when your own link to the SCOTUS page shows that they did, in fact, after taking a month to review the case, and after the Judicial Conference, decide to deny cert in response to the defense attorney's petition
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 9:24 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:24 pm

Still waiting for you to show me where it says intent is NOT required for the law, when I've shown you it is. 
*******. 

intent is required for the specific actions delineated in subsections a and b.  Learn to read.

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 9:24 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 9:24 pm

Still waiting for you to show me where it says intent is NOT required for the law, when I've shown you it is. 
*******. 

Like I said.  learn to read.  

Article 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...

Article 1(b): whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent ...

Article 1(c): whoever, for the purpose aforesaid... (does not mention intent, only purpose)

Article 1(d) 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, wilfully communicates or transmits... (does not mention purpose OR intent)

Article 1(e)whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits...(does not mention purpose OR intent)


Only two of the five sub-articles require intent.

Again.... learn to read.  each article talks about different types of actions and, for some of them those actions, the need to have intent and purpose, for another only purpose, and for the other two, neither purpose nor intent