Liberal Forum

https://carnegieendowment.org/2003/12/1 ... -pub-14744

roadkill » 17 Jun 2023, 1:07 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 1:07 am

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/O2r16HS0CvU

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

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... raq.israel


Israel knew Iraq had no WMD, says MPAssociated PressWed 4 Feb 2004 03.55 EST

•  
•  
•  

A prominent Israeli MP said yesterday that his country's intelligence services knew claims that Saddam Hussein was capable of swiftly launching weapons of mass destruction were wrong but withheld the information from Washington."It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale," Yossi Sarid, a member of the foreign affairs and defence committee which is investigating the quality of Israeli intelligence on Iraq, told the Associated Press yesterday."Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario, and it should have," he said.
 

jerrab » 17 Jun 2023, 2:57 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 2:57 am

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

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... raq.israel

Israel knew Iraq had no WMD, says MPAssociated PressWed 4 Feb 2004 03.55 EST

•  
•  
•  

A prominent Israeli MP said yesterday that his country's intelligence services knew claims that Saddam Hussein was capable of swiftly launching weapons of mass destruction were wrong but withheld the information from Washington."It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale," Yossi Sarid, a member of the foreign affairs and defence committee which is investigating the quality of Israeli intelligence on Iraq, told the Associated Press yesterday."Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario, and it should have," he said.

Trump is right.

roadkill » 17 Jun 2023, 2:59 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 2:59 am

Trump is right.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHR ... g83514.htm

roadkill » 17 Jun 2023, 2:59 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 2:59 am

Trump is right.

the claims of israel were lies.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/ ... erleading/

-------------------------------------------------Share
Copy
PrintThe American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies aren’t responding to requests for comment about the role their institutions played in making the case for war in Iraq.Moreover, it appears they’ve taken steps to remove evidence of their actions from the Internet or outright deny the actions they took in 2002.FDD was founded in April 2001 as EMET (Hebrew for “truth”) “to provide education to enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations.” Clifford May, its founder, quickly went about pushing for war. In April 2002, he described Iran and Iraq as “terrorist-sponsoring regimes attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction.”And in January 2002, May wrote, “That Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction cannot be seriously doubted,” in National Review Online.
 
 

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5RwasZ4HVmA
 

jerrab » 17 Jun 2023, 3:18 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 3:18 am

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHR ... g83514.htm

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

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to- ... aq-attack/


Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin."Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.As evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.
 

roadkill » 17 Jun 2023, 2:59 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 2:59 am

Trump is right.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump ... 8cb95e7e7a
Israel group mints Trump coin to honor Jerusalem recognition
 

jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 7:35 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2023, 7:35 pm

are you   even aware that nara is not being sued but another group is trying to get nara to declare the clinton tapes as national records?

Are you aware that NARA was SUED in order to FORCE THEM to seize Clinton's "sock drawer" tapes??? AND that under the PRA, it was RULED IN A COURT OF LAW by an OBAMA APPOINTED JUDGE that:

A. NARA has NO AUTHORITY TO SEIZE ANYTHING AT ANY TIME
B. That ONLY the President can determine what is Presidential records and what is Personal; records.NARA has no authority to do so.
C. That NARA has do legal basis to look at any records NOR to make any determination to CLASSIFICATION.
D. That NO OTHER AGENCY has any legal basis to seize ANY records that a President has taken with him under the PRA.

Now, **** *******, SHUT THE **** UP!!
 

Beekeeper » 17 Jun 2023, 6:47 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 6:47 am

Are you aware that NARA was SUED in order to FORCE THEM to seize Clinton's "sock drawer" tapes??? AND that under the PRA, it was RULED IN A COURT OF LAW by an OBAMA APPOINTED JUDGE that:

A. NARA has NO AUTHORITY TO SEIZE ANYTHING AT ANY TIME
B. That ONLY the President can determine what is Presidential records and what is Personal; records.NARA has no authority to do so.
C. That NARA has do legal basis to look at any records NOR to make any determination to CLASSIFICATION.
D. That NO OTHER AGENCY has any legal basis to seize ANY records that a President has taken with him under the PRA.

Now, **** *******, SHUT THE **** UP!!

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

The decision by Judge Jackson cited prior precedent from the D.C. Circuit that stands for the opposite proposition."That citation included in Jackson's opinion reads, in part, that the Presidential Records Act "does not bestow on the president the power to assert sweeping authority over whatever materials he chooses to designate as presidential records without any possibility of judicial review.""Judge Jackson went on to speculate about the level of deference to be afforded a president making a categorical decision about whether records of his were personal, but she never ruled on that issue," Baron said. "Instead, the case was dismissed on the grounds that plaintiff had no standing to compel the Archivist to seize materials not in the government’s possession."

Beekeeper » 17 Jun 2023, 6:47 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 6:47 am

Are you aware that NARA was SUED in order to FORCE THEM to seize Clinton's "sock drawer" tapes??? AND that under the PRA, it was RULED IN A COURT OF LAW by an OBAMA APPOINTED JUDGE that:

A. NARA has NO AUTHORITY TO SEIZE ANYTHING AT ANY TIME
B. That ONLY the President can determine what is Presidential records and what is Personal; records.NARA has no authority to do so.
C. That NARA has do legal basis to look at any records NOR to make any determination to CLASSIFICATION.
D. That NO OTHER AGENCY has any legal basis to seize ANY records that a President has taken with him under the PRA.

Now, **** *******, SHUT THE **** UP!!

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

That citation included in Jackson's opinion reads, in part, that the Presidential Records Act "does not bestow on the president the power to assert sweeping authority over whatever materials he chooses to designate as presidential records without any possibility of judicial review."

jerrab » 16 Jun 2023, 10:09 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2023, 10:09 pm

stupid.

I would never ever ever vote for trump.

so you are a believer! You believe Jesus Christ died for our sins?  Jesus is the son of God.

And judge judy isn't a supreme court justice.

maineman » 09 Jun 2023, 7:08 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Jun 2023, 7:08 pm

and I will admit that I am not a legal expert...but I DO have one on speed dial who answers the phone with, "Hi Daddio".  

Mulvaney?
 

MR-7 » 17 Jun 2023, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 11:27 am

Mulvaney?

Is that supposed to have some cryptic sort of meaning?

You'll need to give me some more information. 

maineman » 17 Jun 2023, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 11:43 am

Is that supposed to have some cryptic sort of meaning?

You'll need to give me some more information.

you posted.... I am not a legal expert...but I DO have one on speed dial who answers the phone with, "Hi Daddio". 

 
 

maineman » 14 Jun 2023, 12:45 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Jun 2023, 12:45 pm

the definition of "personal records" from the Presidential Records Act:

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof,2 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. Such term includes—
(A) 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 Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
(C) materials relating exclusively to the President's own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning foreign country support of terrorist acts against the United States do NOT fit that definition.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning the nuclear weapons capabilities of foreign countries do NOT fit that definition.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning projected comparative regional military capabilities of foreign countries versus the United States do NOT fit that definition.

I think that Jack Smith is going to have a very easy time convincing a jury that documents concerning military attacks by a foreign country do NOT fit that definition.

ten years for each offense.  and there are 27 more just like those four examples.

 

Trump does not get to declare a presidential record a personal record.  His responsibility was not to re-categorize them, but merely to segregate them so that the Presidential Records - which always remained the property of the United States  - could be easily collected at the end of the presidential term.  He had no ownership of the 31 documents listed in the indictment and he has no viable argument to the contrary.

MR-7 » 17 Jun 2023, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 11:52 am

you posted.... I am not a legal expert...but I DO have one on speed dial who answers the phone with, "Hi Daddio". 



 

and that is true.  Who is this Mulvaney person?  Not my daughter, that's for sure.

maineman » 17 Jun 2023, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 11:59 am

Trump does not get to declare a presidential record a personal record.  His responsibility was not to re-categorize them, but merely to segregate them so that the Presidential Records - which always remained the property of the United States  - could be easily collected at the end of the presidential term.  He had no ownership of the 31 documents listed in the indictment and he has no viable argument to the contrary.

You apparently don't know who the United States is......it sure the **** isn't a bunch of federal bureacrats.

jerrab » 17 Jun 2023, 9:58 am » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 9:58 am

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

That citation included in Jackson's opinion reads, in part, that the Presidential Records Act "does not bestow on the president the power to assert sweeping authority over whatever materials he chooses to designate as presidential records without any possibility of judicial review."

Jackson NEVER quoted THAT SECTION of the ruling you refer to, ****!!

So that is a TOTALLY MOOT POINT and has ZERO bearing on Clinton's OR ANY OTHER CASE since she never QUOTED that CITATION!!

Nice try, but you get that ARSE handed to you AGAIN, ASSHOLE!!

                             

Beekeeper » 17 Jun 2023, 2:57 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jun 2023, 2:57 pm

Jackson NEVER quoted THAT SECTION of the ruling you refer to, ****!!

So that is a TOTALLY MOOT POINT and has ZERO bearing on Clinton's OR ANY OTHER CASE since she never QUOTED that CITATION!!

Nice try, but you get that ARSE handed to you AGAIN, ASSHOLE!!

                           

it is the law. and still is the law.