Liberal Forum

Buffalo » 15 Jun 2023, 6:12 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 6:12 am

https://twitter.com/i/status/1669021253594750983

It's a Soviet show trial.

one government document could  be thousands of pages or more.

this is not grade school.

jerrab » 15 Jun 2023, 1:23 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 1:23 pm

thanks to the kurds isis was stopped and putin knows that.

Yer wrong.  That was the anti-Trump propaganda.

Maps back then showed the Kurds in only tiny areas of Syria fighting pockets of ISIS.

Russia had massive airpower...lol, the Kurds do not.  What you are saying is impossible.  Are you a Kurd?  

Sumela » 15 Jun 2023, 2:01 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 2:01 pm

Yer wrong.  That was the anti-Trump propaganda.

Maps back then showed the Kurds in only tiny areas of Syria fighting pockets of ISIS.

Russia had massive airpower...lol, the Kurds do not.  What you are saying is impossible.  Are you a Kurd?

--------------------------------

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/puti ... over-isis/

The research laid out below leaves little doubt that the United States and its allies in the anti-ISIS coalition—key among them Iraqi troops, Kurdish Peshmerga and the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, as well as Syrian Arab fighters—played a primary role in subduing ISIS, while Russia and its allies played an auxiliary role that contributed only marginally to the terrorist group’s defeat. This follows from three factors: (1) that U.S.-led forces dislodged ISIS from more key strongholds and square miles of territory than did Russia; (2) that, despite a major Russian military deployment to Syria beginning in September 2015, Moscow’s campaigns against ISIS began in earnest only in 2017, when the group had already been severely weakened and was compelled to concentrate its forces on fighting the U.S.-backed SDF advance in eastern Syria; and (3) that, in the words of political analyst Vladimir Frolov, Moscow’s main goal had never been to fight ISIS but “to suppress the armed opposition to [President] Bashar Assad’s regime, which by fall 2015 had lost control over 70 percent of the country’s territory and was on the verge of military defeat.”6 Frolov’s assessment, likewise voiced by numerous U.S. experts, finds some reflection in the Russian Defense Ministry’s own 2017 end-of-year statistics on its Syria campaign, which made no distinction between ISIS facilities/fighters and those of other “terrorists” and “militants.”
 

Buffalo » 14 Jun 2023, 6:33 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 6:33 pm

Not when he was VP or a Sen!!!

he is president now

jerrab » 15 Jun 2023, 2:23 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 2:23 pm

--------------------------------

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/puti ... over-isis/

The research laid out below leaves little doubt that the United States and its allies in the anti-ISIS coalition—key among them Iraqi troops, Kurdish Peshmerga and the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, as well as Syrian Arab fighters—played a primary role in subduing ISIS, while Russia and its allies played an auxiliary role that contributed only marginally to the terrorist group’s defeat. This follows from three factors: (1) that U.S.-led forces dislodged ISIS from more key strongholds and square miles of territory than did Russia; (2) that, despite a major Russian military deployment to Syria beginning in September 2015, Moscow’s campaigns against ISIS began in earnest only in 2017, when the group had already been severely weakened and was compelled to concentrate its forces on fighting the U.S.-backed SDF advance in eastern Syria; and (3) that, in the words of political analyst Vladimir Frolov, Moscow’s main goal had never been to fight ISIS but “to suppress the armed opposition to [President] Bashar Assad’s regime, which by fall 2015 had lost control over 70 percent of the country’s territory and was on the verge of military defeat.”6 Frolov’s assessment, likewise voiced by numerous U.S. experts, finds some reflection in the Russian Defense Ministry’s own 2017 end-of-year statistics on its Syria campaign, which made no distinction between ISIS facilities/fighters and those of other “terrorists” and “militants.”

LOL, Brookings is NEOCON 101.  They were not fearful of ISIS. 
If ISIS had taken over the Syrian govt - the Neocons would have CHEERED.

The goal was ASSAD MUST GO.  Obama said it over and over.
 

Sumela » 15 Jun 2023, 2:30 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 2:30 pm

LOL, Brookings is NEOCON 101.  They were not fearful of ISIS. 
If ISIS had taken over the Syrian govt - the Neocons would have CHEERED.

The goal was ASSAD MUST GO.  Obama said it over and over.

nothing to do  with isis

jerrab » 15 Jun 2023, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 1:28 pm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
. PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President

What you FAIL to realize is that 100% of ALL AGENCIES in the Administrative Branch that GENERATE DOCUMENTS, are all under the DIRECT CONTROL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THEIR GENERATION. So ALL of those documents generated BY TRUMP'S administration literally, HE CONTROLS THEIR DISPOSITION and does STILL TO THIS DAY under the PRA. AND that would also include an OTHER documents he comes into contact with SINCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH IS the President of the United States. BY THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ALONE, he and ONLY HE can determine their disposition INCLUDING what he deems to be classified or not and at ANY TIME in ANY MANNER can he do so.

So EDUCATE YOURSELF before you end up even MORE EFFING STUPID than you already are, *******!!


AND the PRA has NOT given any "Authority" to the NARA, FBI, DOJ, or anyone ELSE to FORCE THE PRESIDENT/EX to TURN OVER ANY DAMN DOCUMENT OF ANY KIND, PERIOD. HE alone can determine what happens to them. PERIOD!!!

Beekeeper » 15 Jun 2023, 3:27 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 3:27 pm

What you FAIL to realize is that 100% of ALL AGENCIES in the Administrative Branch that GENERATE DOCUMENTS, are all under the DIRECT CONTROL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THEIR GENERATION. So ALL of those documents generated BY TRUMP'S administration literally, HE CONTROLS THEIR DISPOSITION and does STILL TO THIS DAY under the PRA. AND that would also include an OTHER documents he comes into contact with SINCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH IS the President of the United States. BY THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ALONE, he and ONLY HE can determine their disposition INCLUDING what he deems to be classified or not and at ANY TIME in ANY MANNER can he do so.

So EDUCATE YOURSELF before you end up even MORE EFFING STUPID than you already are, *******!!

AND the PRA has NOT given any "Authority" to the NARA, FBI, DOJ, or anyone ELSE to FORCE THE PRESIDENT/EX to TURN OVER ANY DAMN DOCUMENT OF ANY KIND, PERIOD. HE alone can determine what happens to them. PERIOD!!!

nope. dumb *** the ruling it is up to the president, which is always meant to be the present president, not past presidents.

jerrab » 15 Jun 2023, 3:45 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 3:45 pm

nope. dumb *** the ruling it is up to the president, which is always meant to be the present president, not past presidents.

Really now.

So when THIS RULING WAS MADE, your boy Ovomit was THE President. And that RULING was in DIRECT REFERENCE to CLINTON AND HIS DETERMINATION of what WAS and WASN'T his own records.

Now explain why OBAMA had NO SAY in that RULING, ****???

jerrab » 15 Jun 2023, 3:45 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 3:45 pm

nope. dumb *** the ruling it is up to the president, which is always meant to be the present president, not past presidents.

Did you LOVE getting KICKED IN THE NUTS WITH YOUR STUPIDITY HERE???

                   

jerrab » 15 Jun 2023, 1:40 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 1:40 pm

one government document could  be thousands of pages or more.

this is not grade school.

one would think that the bozo you are arguing with is still IN grade school, however.  

Beekeeper » 15 Jun 2023, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 4:00 pm

Did you LOVE getting KICKED IN THE NUTS WITH YOUR STUPIDITY HERE???

                 

you must love getting kicked.

trump is not president anymore.

Beekeeper » 15 Jun 2023, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 3:54 pm

Really now.

So when THIS RULING WAS MADE, your boy Ovomit was THE President. And that RULING was in DIRECT REFERENCE to CLINTON AND HIS DETERMINATION of what WAS and WASN'T his own records.

Now explain why OBAMA had NO SAY in that RULING, ****???

and obama was in agreement.

the PRA defines what personal records are and are not. I posted that quote a couple of days ago.

Beekeeper » 15 Jun 2023, 3:54 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 3:54 pm

Really now.

So when THIS RULING WAS MADE, your boy Ovomit was THE President. And that RULING was in DIRECT REFERENCE to CLINTON AND HIS DETERMINATION of what WAS and WASN'T his own records.

Now explain why OBAMA had NO SAY in that RULING, ****???

if obama objected it would have been different since obama was president.

jerrab » 15 Jun 2023, 4:05 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 4:05 pm

and obama was in agreement.

PROVE that one, ****!!!!!

Because IF he had ANY SAY IN THAT, there would have been a court case where HIS "RULING" was presented as OPPOSING THE LAWSUIT!! THAT never happened, but the DOJ opposed the lawsuit BASED ON THE PRA giving CLINTON the sole discretion as to what HE determined he would keep. AND It pointed out that NO ONE has any authority to CLASSIFY ANY DOCUMENT IN THE POSSESSION OF A FORMER PRESIDENT EXCEPT THAT FORMER PRESIDENT!! THAT was the JUDGES RULING, ASSHOLE!!

Face, it *******, you got your *** KICKED MASSIVELY on this one and you've had it torn to a BLOODY PULP!!!

jerrab » 14 Jun 2023, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 10:22 am

you **** idiot.

you already claim he is innocent.

I am referring to the court system,, ****!!!  
 

Beekeeper » 15 Jun 2023, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 4:10 pm

PROVE that one, ****!!!!!

Because IF he had ANY SAY IN THAT, there would have been a court case where HIS "RULING" was presented as OPPOSING THE LAWSUIT!! THAT never happened, but the DOJ opposed the lawsuit BASED ON THE PRA giving CLINTON the sole discretion as to what HE determined he would keep. AND It pointed out that NO ONE has any authority to CLASSIFY ANY DOCUMENT IN THE POSSESSION OF A FORMER PRESIDENT EXCEPT THAT FORMER PRESIDENT!! THAT was the JUDGES RULING, ASSHOLE!!

Face, it *******, you got your *** KICKED MASSIVELY on this one and you've had it torn to a BLOODY PULP!!!

a group  sued nara,

nara did not want the tapes.


https://apnews.com/article/trump-indict ... 52638daebf

•  

CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump’s actions were legally sound.THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn’t the parallel Trump makes it out to be.In Judicial Watch vs. NARA, a conservative activist group sued for access to audio recordings of wide ranging interviews Clinton did with historian Taylor Branch during his time in the White House. Clinton was reported to have stashed the cassettes in his sock drawer.The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were “presidential records” that the agency (nara)should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn’t have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has “absolutely nothing to do with” the charges Trump currently faces.For one thing, the court didn’t dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign didn’t respond to an email seeking comment, but the Republican and his allies have argued that the judge’s ruling in the case showed that the Presidential Records Act affords presidents complete discretion to delineate between personal and presidential records.Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim “mixes apples and oranges.”“The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business,” he wrote. “In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government.”Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University’s School of Law in Hempstead, New York, also noted that a federal appeals court has already rejected similar arguments raised by Trump’s legal team as it sought to block the criminal investigation into the records found at Mar-a-Lago.In either case, Super said, any discussion about the Presidential Records Act is “largely a red herring” because Trump doesn’t face charges of violating that law.The indictment instead charges Trump with Espionage Act violations, as prosecutors argue the documents he kept could harm the country if obtained by adversaries. 
 

 -------------------------- The PRA distinguishes Presidential records from “personal records,” defining personal records as “all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.” Id. § 2201(3). The PRA provides that “diaries, journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Governmental business” should be treated as personal records. Id. § 2201(3)(A). The PRA requires that all materials produced or received by the President, “to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” Id. § 2203(b).

https://casetext.com/case/judicial-watc ... ords-admin

jerrab » 15 Jun 2023, 4:28 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2023, 4:28 pm

a group  sued nara,

nara did not want the tapes.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-indict ... 52638daebf

•  

CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump’s actions were legally sound.THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn’t the parallel Trump makes it out to be.In Judicial Watch vs. NARA, a conservative activist group sued for access to audio recordings of wide ranging interviews Clinton did with historian Taylor Branch during his time in the White House. Clinton was reported to have stashed the cassettes in his sock drawer.The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were “presidential records” that the agency (nara)should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn’t have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has “absolutely nothing to do with” the charges Trump currently faces.For one thing, the court didn’t dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign didn’t respond to an email seeking comment, but the Republican and his allies have argued that the judge’s ruling in the case showed that the Presidential Records Act affords presidents complete discretion to delineate between personal and presidential records.Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim “mixes apples and oranges.”“The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business,” he wrote. “In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government.”Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University’s School of Law in Hempstead, New York, also noted that a federal appeals court has already rejected similar arguments raised by Trump’s legal team as it sought to block the criminal investigation into the records found at Mar-a-Lago.In either case, Super said, any discussion about the Presidential Records Act is “largely a red herring” because Trump doesn’t face charges of violating that law.The indictment instead charges Trump with Espionage Act violations, as prosecutors argue the documents he kept could harm the country if obtained by adversaries.

"Espionage Act violations"


Yep...that sounds like a phrase the DC hit squad would use.  


Most of the MSM spent about 6 hours on Trump's indictment...and Zero Seconds on the Biden's proven crimes.