Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
"DOJ has one big problem with its Trump criminal case, legal expert says"
"DOJ has one big problem with its Trump criminal case, legal expert says"
By roadkill
9 Jun 2023 4:22 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
19 Jun 2023 8:21 pm
The entire law requires intent, and you have none.maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 9:37 pm » wrote: ↑ 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
19 Jun 2023 8:22 pm
^^ ******* claimed SCOTUS agreed with his racist daughter.maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 9:25 pm » wrote: ↑ 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
19 Jun 2023 8:23 pm
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-f ... =100129183golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑ Still waiting for you to show Trump INTENDED to harm the United States, as the law requires.
Trump is specifically charged with 31 violations of Section 793(e) of the Espionage Act.That section makes it illegal for anyone who has "unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over" national defense information -- such as documents, blueprints, photos, plans and more -- and who "has reason to believe [the information] could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" then either shares it with unauthorized people or "willfully retains the same and fails" to return it.
19 Jun 2023 8:25 pm
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/13/politics ... index.html
The Espionage Act is bigger than espionageThe CNN legal analyst and the former counsel to the assistant attorney general for national security Carrie Cordero explained the legal system to CNN’s Jake Tapper on “The Lead” on Monday. A typical spy would be charged under the Espionage Act, she said. But so would someone who improperly retained national defense information.“In this case, former President Trump hasn’t been charged with spying for a foreign government, or espionage as we normally think about it, but he has been charged with willfully withholding national defense information – which is the way that a case like this is normally charged,” Cordero said.She also noted that in the national security legal community, there is some discussion of separating laws related to national security information out from the Espionage Act.
19 Jun 2023 8:26 pm
they did... as did the trial judge, the appeals court judge, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and the Federal Court of Appeals. SHe is not a racist, but a fine, upstanding public servant putting the bad guy in jail, no matter what their race color or creed.golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 8:22 pm » wrote: ↑ ^^ ******* claimed SCOTUS agreed with his racist daughter.
19 Jun 2023 8:27 pm
wrong... only the first two subsections of Section One require intent.
19 Jun 2023 8:28 pm
The entire law requires intent.maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 8:27 pm » wrote: ↑ wrong... only the first two subsections of Section One require intent.
19 Jun 2023 8:28 pm
Cool. Show us their decision, saying they agreed with the lower court.maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 8:26 pm » wrote: ↑ they did... as did the trial judge, the appeals court judge, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and the Federal Court of Appeals. SHe is not a racist, but a fine, upstanding public servant putting the bad guy in jail, no matter what their race color or creed.
19 Jun 2023 8:29 pm
Repetition of your inaccurate reading isn't going to change the fact that you're wrong again.maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 8:27 pm » wrote: ↑ wrong... only the first two subsections of Section One require intent.
19 Jun 2023 8:30 pm
the law only requires intent for the first two subsections of Section One.golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑ Still waiting for you to show Trump INTENDED to harm the United States, as the law requires.
But you'd never know that because you cannot read beyond the first two sentences.
word soup.
19 Jun 2023 8:30 pm
Cool. Tell us how a 3 year old map would injure Americajerrab » 19 Jun 2023, 8:23 pm » wrote: ↑ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-f ... =100129183
Trump is specifically charged with 31 violations of Section 793(e) of the Espionage Act.That section makes it illegal for anyone who has "unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over" national defense information -- such as documents, blueprints, photos, plans and more -- and who "has reason to believe [the information] could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" then either shares it with unauthorized people or "willfully retains the same and fails" to return it.
19 Jun 2023 8:30 pm
I showed you the verbiage. You have yet to show otherwise.golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 8:29 pm » wrote: ↑ Repetition of your inaccurate reading isn't going to change the fact that you're wrong again.
19 Jun 2023 8:32 pm
It would depend on whether significant aspects of that map had changed in the interim.
19 Jun 2023 8:33 pm
they chose not to disagree with the lower COURTS.. ALL of which supported the decision of the trial judge, and that disagreed with YOU.golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑ Cool. Show us their decision, saying they agreed with the lower court.
19 Jun 2023 8:35 pm
No, they chose not to consider the request to hear the case.maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 8:33 pm » wrote: ↑ they chose not to disagree with the lower COURTS.. ALL of which supported the decision of the trial judge, and that disagreed with YOU.
*******.
19 Jun 2023 8:36 pm
for lack of merit.golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑ No, they chose not to consider the request to hear the case.
*******.
19 Jun 2023 8:38 pm
no court in the land is willing to call my daughter a racist.golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑ No, they chose not to consider the request to hear the case.
*******.
that's a fact.
Suck on that, pedo boy.
19 Jun 2023 8:40 pm
The map wouldn't have changed, but the facts would have.maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 8:32 pm » wrote: ↑ It would depend on whether significant aspects of that map had changed in the interim.
Would our ability to attack Iran have changed in 3 years? Would their defenses?
Of course.
That plan is obsolute and useless.
And again, you have to prove Trump believe that information would harm America.
(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;
Doesn't matter how many time you repeat yourself, you're not going to change that fact.
19 Jun 2023 8:43 pm
Harming America is not an element of the crime in several of the sub-articles in the Espionage Act... but we both know you've never read that far to know that.golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 8:40 pm » wrote: ↑ The map wouldn't have changed, but the facts would have.
Would our ability to attack Iran have changed in 3 years? Would their defenses?
Of course.
That plan is obsolute and useless.
And again, you have to prove Trump believe that information would harm America.
(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;
Doesn't matter how many time you repeat yourself, you're not going to change that fact.
Poor dyslexic aphasic moron.... I feel sorry for you.
19 Jun 2023 8:44 pm
She kicked the only black man off a jury, of a black defendant.maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 8:38 pm » wrote: ↑ no court in the land is willing to call my daughter a racist.
that's a fact.
Suck on that, pedo boy.
Go ahead and try to spin that as anything but racist.
Who is online
In total there are 5280 users online :: 19 registered, 17 bots, and 5244 guests
Registered users: roadkill, Blackvegetable, Zeets2, Buck Naked, ROG62, RebelGator, ConservativeWave, *GHETTO BLASTER, MR-7, michaelf, Skans, murdock, LowIQTrash, PhiloBeddo, Cedar, nefarious101, 31st Arrival, *Huey, Fuelman
Bots: LCC, Not, GPTBot, Scrapy, YandexBot, CriteoBot, Applebot, app.hypefactors.com, Mediapartners-Google, proximic, linkfluence.com, ADmantX, bingbot, Googlebot, BLEXBot, curl/7, semantic-visions.com