Ok, I just read the indictment. Here's what I learned: Trump is f.*****

QP! said:
You do not understand what you read and you should stop talking about it.


It is correct Trump COULD choose to declassify almost anything the government classified. But that 'COULD' is subject to a process. He 'CAN' do it as long as he follows the process.


What that means is no authority could stop him doing it and going thru the process, should a POTUS choose to.

What the 'COULD' does NOT mean, is that anything is automatically classified just because he could have done it. Trumps own white house on three precedent cases proved that to be true.


It is like saying you 'could' go to the store. That does not mean you did it. It means you have the power to but there are things you must do (get up, walk, get there) to make it happen.


You need to stay out topics where adults speak as you are one of the more ignorant posters on these topics.
Click to expand...

GorgeousMisguidedIrishsetter-small.gif
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Why weren't Biden, Clinton, and Pence charged? Because they did not seek to hide documents from the government. They did not ignore first requests and then a subpoena to return them. They did not order underlings to hide them. They did not instruct their attorneys to say "Yes, everything has been returned" when it wasn't. They did not flaunt the documents in order to show off. They did not claim that the documents had been declassified when they were not.

You say you hold a TS clearance. If YOU had possession of a classified document and took it to a party and showed it off to others, YOU would have been rotting in prison long before now. Why do you think some ignorant and corrupt former IMPOTUSx2 should be above the law and treated better than YOU would have been? This isn't a monarchy or a dictatorship where laws don't apply to the would-be king. Trump is now a private citizen, just like you and I.
Click to expand...

I never said I held a Top Secret clearance. I had a Secret clearance. As for Clinton et al. not being charged, that's just a special pleading in the form of whataboutism. It goes with the adage, Hard cases make bad law. They weren't charged because they are the rule to elites / VIP's having classified information rather than the exception (Trump). It doesn't change that they ALL should have been charged, Trump included.

What you are arguing is only Trump deserved to be charged while the others should be left to get off scot free. You're right too in your hypocrisy, This isn't a monarchy or a dictatorship where laws don't apply to the would-be king. Charge them all, apply the law fairly and equally.
 
The fact is Trump was in conflict with the presidential records act. He stole documents that had nothing to do with him or his policies. He stole documents that are vital to the military and that provided information about our defense and nukes that an enemy would love to have. He stole documents that had to do with our spies and our weapons. They are NOT covered by the act. trump is, as usual, lying about it all, knowing his followers will repeat the lies as gospel.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I never said I held a Top Secret clearance. I had a Secret clearance. As for Clinton et al. not being charged, that's just a special pleading in the form of whataboutism. It goes with the adage, Hard cases make bad law. They weren't charged because they are the rule to elites / VIP's having classified information rather than the exception (Trump). It doesn't change that they ALL should have been charged, Trump included.

What you are arguing is only Trump deserved to be charged while the others should be left to get off scot free. You're right too in your hypocrisy, This isn't a monarchy or a dictatorship where laws don't apply to the would-be king. Charge them all, apply the law fairly and equally.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this stupidity.

Obstruction and lying to the FBI or lying in Affidavit are always treated seriously in law even when the investigated crime is not charged or even found to be true.

You can actually be innocent of the initial charge but if you obstruct or lie in the investigation, go to jail.

It is so common that a decades old idiom has evolve 'it's not the crime... it's the cover up' because so many people go to jail for the cover up, even when the crime cannot be proven.

So you can keep screaming that 'if Trump is charged for obstruction everyone needs to be charged with the underlying crime, regardless of intent can be proven or not... regardless if they cooperated (and Trump did not) or not' but that is simply wrong.

Wrong and stupid.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I read the whole thing just now. That's some pretty weak assed shit there...
Click to expand...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
QP! said:
You keep repeating this stupidity.

Obstruction and lying to the FBI or lying in Affidavit are always treated seriously in law even when the investigated crime is not charged or even found to be true.

You can actually be innocent of the initial charge but if you obstruct or lie in the investigation, go to jail.

It is so common that a decades old idiom has evolve 'it's not the crime... it's the cover up' because so many people go to jail for the cover up, even when the crime cannot be proven.

So you can keep screaming that 'if Trump is charged for obstruction everyone needs to be charged with the underlying crime, regardless of intent can be proven or not... regardless if they cooperated (and Trump did not) or not' but that is simply wrong.

Wrong and stupid.
Click to expand...

Even if terry knows you're right, she will never admit to it. She's too much of a pussy.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I never said I held a Top Secret clearance. I had a Secret clearance. As for Clinton et al. not being charged, that's just a special pleading in the form of whataboutism. It goes with the adage, Hard cases make bad law. They weren't charged because they are the rule to elites / VIP's having classified information rather than the exception (Trump). It doesn't change that they ALL should have been charged, Trump included.

What you are arguing is only Trump deserved to be charged while the others should be left to get off scot free. You're right too in your hypocrisy, This isn't a monarchy or a dictatorship where laws don't apply to the would-be king. Charge them all, apply the law fairly and equally.
Click to expand...

There are 3 things that need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to overcome a presumption of innocence.
1. That they person had classified information or information that could be detrimental to the defense of the nation if disclosed.
2. That the person knew the information was classified or detrimental if disclosed.
3. That the person knowingly retained the information and refused to return the information to an officer of the USA.

The question for you is for who can those 3 things be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? That means you have to start with the presumption of innocence.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
There are 3 things that need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to overcome a presumption of innocence.
1. That they person had classified information or information that could be detrimental to the defense of the nation if disclosed.
2. That the person knew the information was classified or detrimental if disclosed.
3. That the person knowingly retained the information and refused to return the information to an officer of the USA.

The question for you is for who can those 3 things be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? That means you have to start with the presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all three.

Information that is classified is marked as such, and possession outside of established controls for it is illegal, PERIOD.
It is prima facie evidence that if the person had constructive possession of classified information, then they knew it was classified as it was clearly marked as such. Disclosure to anyone is not necessary.
Possession is sufficient to warrant charges regardless of how the person behaves. Offering to return the documents, 'No harm, no foul' is not a defense.

THAT is how the law reads with respect to classified documents.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Wrong on all three.

Information that is classified is marked as such, and possession outside of established controls for it is illegal, PERIOD.
It is prima facie evidence that if the person had constructive possession of classified information, then they knew it was classified as it was clearly marked as such. Disclosure to anyone is not necessary.
Possession is sufficient to warrant charges regardless of how the person behaves. Offering to return the documents, 'No harm, no foul' is not a defense.

THAT is how the law reads with respect to classified documents.
Click to expand...

What are you doing? You know facts give them headaches.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Wrong on all three.

Information that is classified is marked as such, and possession outside of established controls for it is illegal, PERIOD.
Click to expand...

OK. I guess you just proved Hillary didn't break any laws since none of the emails she had were clearly marked as classified. Now maybe you can stop with your "but Hillary" bullshit. But you will now ignore your own statement, I am sure.
It is prima facie evidence that if the person had constructive possession of classified information, then they knew it was classified as it was clearly marked as such. Disclosure to anyone is not necessary.
Possession is sufficient to warrant charges regardless of how the person behaves. Offering to return the documents, 'No harm, no foul' is not a defense.

THAT is how the law reads with respect to classified documents
Click to expand...
Which specific law are you claiming only requires having the documents to be guilty? Trump was not charged with any crime that simply requires the documents be marked classified for it to be illegal for him to have them.
Title 18 793 doesn't say anything about classification. But it does require that the actions be willful and knowing. Simply having possession is not a crime under the law.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I never said I held a Top Secret clearance. I had a Secret clearance. As for Clinton et al. not being charged, that's just a special pleading in the form of whataboutism. It goes with the adage, Hard cases make bad law. They weren't charged because they are the rule to elites / VIP's having classified information rather than the exception (Trump). It doesn't change that they ALL should have been charged, Trump included.

What you are arguing is only Trump deserved to be charged while the others should be left to get off scot free. You're right too in your hypocrisy, This isn't a monarchy or a dictatorship where laws don't apply to the would-be king. Charge them all, apply the law fairly and equally.
Click to expand...

You are claiming that I'm saying something that I did not say. Read my comment again. Trump is being charged with obstruction and for breaking the law by refusing to respond to a subpoena, for refusing to return materials that don't belong to him, for conspiring with others to keep them, for false statements, and for revealing classified information to unauthorized people. As I pointed out, Clinton, Pence, and Biden did none of these things.

It is disgusting that you took an oath to defend the Constitution, yet here you are making excuse for a criminal who wiped his lard ass with it.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
You are claiming that I'm saying something that I did not say. Read my comment again. Trump is being charged with obstruction and for breaking the law by refusing to respond to a subpoena, for refusing to return materials that don't belong to him, for conspiring with others to keep them, for false statements, and for revealing classified information to unauthorized people. As I pointed out, Clinton, Pence, and Biden did none of these things.

It is disgusting that you took an oath to defend the Constitution, yet here you are making excuse for a criminal who wiped his lard ass with it.
Click to expand...

No, read the indictment. For the most part it covers possession of and retention of classified materials. It goes on at length--pages--detailing the classified materials possessed and the laws associated with handling classified materials.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, read the indictment. For the most part it covers possession of and retention of classified materials. It goes on at length--pages--detailing the classified materials possessed and the laws associated with handling classified materials.
Click to expand...

Unlike yourself, I read the entire document. Dismissed.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
OK. I guess you just proved Hillary didn't break any laws since none of the emails she had were clearly marked as classified. Now maybe you can stop with your "but Hillary" bullshit. But you will now ignore your own statement, I am sure.
Click to expand...

She received at least 110 classified e-mails marked as such, up to Top Secret in classification at the time they were sent. She also received somewhere upwards of 2,000+ that were in part either classified at the time or were later classified. She broke the law.

Which specific law are you claiming only requires having the documents to be guilty? Trump was not charged with any crime that simply requires the documents be marked classified for it to be illegal for him to have them.
Title 18 793 doesn't say anything about classification. But it does require that the actions be willful and knowing. Simply having possession is not a crime under the law.
Click to expand...

18 U.S. Code § 1924 Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

This last one is a slam dunk in Hillary's case. She knowingly used an unsecure server and clearly received over a long period of time documents that she knew, or should have known were classified and did nothing about it. That is gross negligence, and chargeable. As SoS, she was privy to classified information and held a security clearance. So, she would have known if something were classified or not upon looking at it as it would be clearly marked such. In at least 110 cases, the document(s) was so marked as the FBI determined. In another over 2,000 cases, there were indicators it was classified. It wasn't one time, but many over a period of years.

She is guilty as fuck.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
She received at least 110 classified e-mails marked as such, up to Top Secret in classification at the time they were sent. She also received somewhere upwards of 2,000+ that were in part either classified at the time or were later classified. She broke the law.



18 U.S. Code § 1924 Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

This last one is a slam dunk in Hillary's case. She knowingly used an unsecure server and clearly received over a long period of time documents that she knew, or should have known were classified and did nothing about it. That is gross negligence, and chargeable. As SoS, she was privy to classified information and held a security clearance. So, she would have known if something were classified or not upon looking at it as it would be clearly marked such. In at least 110 cases, the document(s) was so marked as the FBI determined. In another over 2,000 cases, there were indicators it was classified. It wasn't one time, but many over a period of years.

She is guilty as fuck.
Click to expand...

Nah. She really isn't.
 
BidenPresident said:
Gardner loves defending Trump who he claims he does not support.
Click to expand...

If you had a working brain you'd be able to see it's not about defending trump it's about preventing vengeful ignorant hate filled leftists from using the American justice system for their own political ends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top