Liberal Forum

maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 8:43 pm » wrote: ↑

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.

Poor dyslexic aphasic moron.... I feel sorry for you.

I just quoted the **** law, *******. 
And highlighted the requirement in RED because I knew you won't read.

You have a room temp IQ, and you'll never figure it out. 
 

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

13 Jun 2023, 7:20 pm

1(d) does not require intent.

The earlier post said he was charged with violating section e, which does require intent. 
If you have proof he was charged with section d, produce it. 
 
But regardless, you're still wrong.  Intent is still required in section d:
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with 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 on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
 
You believe this **** they tell you on msLSD, and you never read anything for yourself. 

golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 8:48 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 8:48 pm

The earlier post said he was charged with violating section e, which does require intent. 
If you have proof he was charged with section d, produce it. 
 
But regardless, you're still wrong.  Intent is still required in section d:
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with 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 on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
 
You believe this **** they tell you on msLSD, and you never read anything for yourself.

the Espionage Act Subsection 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 or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or 

Intent is not mentioned.
 
 

golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 8:44 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 8:44 pm

She kicked the only black man off a jury, of a black defendant. 
Go ahead and try to spin that as anything but racist.

I don't need to SPIN anything.  The trial court judge did not think that the Batson rule had been violated, The Appeals court judge did not think The Batson rule had been violated.    The Maine Supreme Court did not think that the Batson rule had been violated.  The Federal Appeals Court did not think that the Batson rule had been violated and the US Supreme Court after they and their clerks had had a month to review the case prior to the Judicial Conference, decided there was no reason to waste their time on a clearly well-decided case.  Try spinning that, you moronic, dyslexic, aphasic pedophile!      

maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 9:08 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:08 pm

I don't need to SPIN anything.  The trial court judge did not think that the Batson rule had been violated, The Appeals court judge did not think The Batson rule had been violated.    The Maine Supreme Court did not think that the Batson rule had been violated.  The Federal Appeals Court did not think that the Batson rule had been violated and the US Supreme Court after they and their clerks had had a month to review the case prior to the Judicial Conference, decided there was no reason to waste their time on a clearly well-decided case.  Try spinning that, you moronic, dyslexic, aphasic pedophile!    

SCOTUS did not agree with your racist daughter. 
Hell, you didn't even know how many judges needed to agree to hear the case. 
 

maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 9:00 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:00 pm

the Espionage Act Subsection 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 or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or 

Intent is not mentioned.

Because you removed it.   You think I wouldn't notice you **** liar?

18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Text contains those laws in effect on June 18, 2023

18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (house.gov)

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with 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 on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
 
 

golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 9:13 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:13 pm

Because you removed it.   You think I wouldn't notice you **** liar?

18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Text contains those laws in effect on June 18, 2023

18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (house.gov)

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with 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 on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

I didn't remove anything. I quoted the Espionage Act of 1917 exactly as written.
 

golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 9:11 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:11 pm

SCOTUS did not agree with your racist daughter. 
Hell, you didn't even know how many judges needed to agree to hear the case.

Every court below them had affirmed the trial court judge that stated that the Batson rule had not been violated and SCOTUS, after a month to review along with their clerks,  saw no reason to reverse that decision..  

golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 8:48 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 8:48 pm

The earlier post said he was charged with violating section e, which does require intent. 
If you have proof he was charged with section d, produce it. 
 
But regardless, you're still wrong.  Intent is still required in section d:
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with 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 on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
 
You believe this **** they tell you on msLSD, and you never read anything for yourself.

intent to harm is not mentioned.

golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 9:13 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:13 pm

Because you removed it.   You think I wouldn't notice you **** liar?

18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Text contains those laws in effect on June 18, 2023

18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (house.gov)

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with 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 on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

here is the link. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-f ... 29183Trump 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.
 

maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 9:18 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:18 pm

I didn't remove anything. I quoted the Espionage Act of 1917 exactly as written.

Then you're just a stupid **** who didn't know the law was amended. 
Room temp.
 

jerrab » 19 Jun 2023, 9:32 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:32 pm

here is the link. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-f ... 29183Trump 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.

The law is here, not ABC news:  18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (house.gov)
 

jerrab » 19 Jun 2023, 9:32 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:32 pm

intent to harm is not mentioned.

Don't lie like mainbitch.   Be better. 
 

maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 9:21 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:21 pm

Every court below them had affirmed the trial court judge that stated that the Batson rule had not been violated and SCOTUS, after a month to review along with their clerks,  saw no reason to reverse that decision..

SCOTUS did not agree with your racist daughter, and it doesn't matter how many times you lie about it. 

 

golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 9:35 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:35 pm

The law is here, not ABC news:  18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (house.gov)

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

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2023/ ... ve/387401/

Federal prosecutors on June 9, 2023, unsealed the indictment that spells out the government’s case against former President Donald J. Trump, who is accused of violating national security laws and obstructing justice.The 49-page document details how Trump kept classified government documents – including papers concerning U.S. nuclear capabilities – scattered in boxes across his home at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, long after his presidency ended in 2021 and the government tried to reclaim them.The indictment also shows that Trump shared classified national defense information with people without any security clearance, including someone on a political action committee.There are 38 felony charges against Trump – 31 of these counts relate to withholding national defense information. Five counts relate to concealing possession of classified documents, and two relate to giving false statements.“My office will seek a speedy trial in this matter, consistent with the public interest and the rights of the accused,” said U.S. special prosecutor Jack Smith, who was appointed to oversee the investigation into Trump’s holding of the documents.The Conversation spoke to criminal law scholar Gabriel J. Chin at the University of California, Davis School of Law about the most important takeaways from the unsealed indictment – and the new, open questions it presents about Trump’s alleged criminal activity.
 

golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 9:35 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:35 pm

The law is here, not ABC news:  18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (house.gov)

click on this-

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... indictment

golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 9:37 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:37 pm

SCOTUS did not agree with your racist daughter, and it doesn't matter how many times you lie about it.

and you can keep repeating your lie about her being a racist and it will continue to be ridiculous and laughed at by EVERY court.

jerrab » 19 Jun 2023, 9:42 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:42 pm

click on this-

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... indictment

Why would I click on your link, instead of the House government website set up for the specific purpose of tracking all laws?
Again, that link is here:  18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (house.gov)

 

maineman » 19 Jun 2023, 9:44 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:44 pm

and you can keep repeating your lie about her being a racist and it will continue to be ridiculous and laughed at by EVERY court.

Not SCOTUS, as you claimed, room temp.
 
 

golfboy » 19 Jun 2023, 9:34 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jun 2023, 9:34 pm

Then you're just a stupid **** who didn't know the law was amended. 
Room temp.

and you seem to feel as if the Espionage Act only concerns sections that require intent or purpose when it comes to mishandling documents.  Some, in fact, only require negligence..