*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 3634
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9920 on: September 02, 2022, 07:58:17 PM »
https://nypost.com/2022/09/02/biden-walks-back-attacks-on-trump-voters-in-anti-maga-speech/

Nah. It's clear when he refers to the MAGA Republicans who are taking over the Party and thriving on lies, he's referring to the politicians, maybe the pundits. There's nothing quoted here that would make one assume he was referring to the rank-and-file zombies who support Trump (and the article is really trying very hard to make that case).
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2984
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9921 on: September 02, 2022, 09:35:23 PM »
Republicans regularly heap insults and abuse on Democrats, Democratic voters, and residents of blue states. Whenever Democrats try to fire back at them, however nuanced or measured their criticism is, Republicans clutch their pearls and sob about how deeply they've been wronged. Even to this day they're still bringing up Hillary's "deplorables" comment from years ago as evidence of how mean Democrats are.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9922 on: September 03, 2022, 09:14:33 AM »
Republicans regularly heap insults and abuse on Democrats, Democratic voters, and residents of blue states. Whenever Democrats try to fire back at them, however nuanced or measured their criticism is, Republicans clutch their pearls and sob about how deeply they've been wronged. Even to this day they're still bringing up Hillary's "deplorables" comment from years ago as evidence of how mean Democrats are.

They're snowflakes.  They made the term and now they're loving it.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9923 on: September 03, 2022, 01:27:19 PM »
According to the leftist narrative this is over the 100th time Trump was supposed to have been sentenced to years of prison since 2016. Every couple of weeks there has been a declaration by the left that Trump is done for. How about you stop embarrassing yourselves and only post again when it actually happens.


According to Trump's own soshul meediyah posts, he's all but confessed. He claimed the FBI "took the documents out of the boxes" to photograph them on his office floor.

So he agrees he had classified material, in document boxes, unsecured, in his office in a non-Governmental building.

His lawyers add to his misery by saying "that's not how his office looks. It's a lot tidier than that, because he has guests coming in and out regularly". So the office where the documents were, has unsecured access to general public without security clearance or monitoring.

All quotes paraphrased from memory.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10241
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9924 on: September 03, 2022, 05:37:25 PM »
Again, rather than speculating about what was and wasn't unclassified, and how it was secured, and what you think is and is not legal, how about you simply refrain from speaking on this topic until something actually happens.

Since you know that the situation isn't that you haven't just been ignorant of laws and repeatedly wrong for the last seven years you have been predicting his demise, and since you know that he is obviously done for this time, you clearly just need to wait for it to happen and for your superior intellect to be proven true.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9925 on: September 03, 2022, 06:34:51 PM »
Again, rather than speculating about what was and wasn't unclassified, and how it was secured, and what you think is and is not legal, how about you simply refrain from speaking on this topic until something actually happens.

Since you know that the situation isn't that you haven't just been ignorant of laws and repeatedly wrong for the last seven years you have been predicting his demise, and since you know that he is obviously done for this time, you clearly just need to wait for it to happen and for your superior intellect to be proven true.
How's the election overturning going, btw?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2984
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9926 on: September 03, 2022, 10:03:38 PM »
If the situation were as simple as Trump having declassified the relevant documents already, then the government wouldn't be doing what it's doing. There must be some sort of process to declassification that Trump didn't follow. Nevertheless, I do reluctantly agree with Tom in that I would be astonished if Trump were to be indicted for this or anything at all. Even if the investigation plays out perfectly and clearly implicates Trump, I think some important figure at the top will simply decline to prosecute Trump, probably for political reasons.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3441
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9927 on: September 04, 2022, 01:38:18 AM »
"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government, '' Trump said in August 2016. "In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information," he said in September 2016.
Speaking in July of that year, Trump said Clinton's mishandling "disqualifies" her from public service.

"Any government employee who engaged in this kind of behavior would be barred from handling classified information," Trump said. "Again, that alone disqualifies her."

"That is the most confidential stuff," Trump said. "Classified. That's classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that."

"He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted," one Trump tweet in April 2018 said, with another saying Comey should be in jail.


And on, and on, and on.

But yeah, you can't really go to jail for being a hypocrite. Like everything else, I agree, he'll slither out of this, a few patsies will take the fall and we'll be back to business as usual with a run-up to his 2024 nomination.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7023
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9928 on: September 04, 2022, 01:57:04 AM »
If the situation were as simple as Trump having declassified the relevant documents already, then the government wouldn't be doing what it's doing. There must be some sort of process to declassification that Trump didn't follow.
Although the president does have broad discretion in classifying and declassifying documents, his "standing order" seems like a stretch.  However, there are some documents (nuclear secrets and the like) that he does not have the right to declassify.  Even the ones that he can declassify usually go through a redaction process.


Nevertheless, I do reluctantly agree with Tom in that I would be astonished if Trump were to be indicted for this or anything at all. Even if the investigation plays out perfectly and clearly implicates Trump, I think some important figure at the top will simply decline to prosecute Trump, probably for political reasons.
Sadly, Tom is probably right.  I can't find it on line, but Jon Stewart recently said that Trump is like a child whose parents keep saying that they're going to count to three but only ever get to two and a half.  Looks like Trump's joke about being able to shoot someone dead on 5th Ave and suffer no consequences is more true than even he many have thought at the time.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10241
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9929 on: September 04, 2022, 02:38:09 AM »
"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government, '' Trump said in August 2016. "In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information," he said in September 2016.
Speaking in July of that year, Trump said Clinton's mishandling "disqualifies" her from public service.

"Any government employee who engaged in this kind of behavior would be barred from handling classified information," Trump said. "Again, that alone disqualifies her."

"That is the most confidential stuff," Trump said. "Classified. That's classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that."

"He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted," one Trump tweet in April 2018 said, with another saying Comey should be in jail.


And on, and on, and on.

But yeah, you can't really go to jail for being a hypocrite. Like everything else, I agree, he'll slither out of this, a few patsies will take the fall and we'll be back to business as usual with a run-up to his 2024 nomination.

All of those quotes are dependent of of these materials being classified and the something improper being done here. Those materials may not be classified.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3441
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9930 on: September 04, 2022, 05:54:02 AM »
"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government, '' Trump said in August 2016. "In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information," he said in September 2016.
Speaking in July of that year, Trump said Clinton's mishandling "disqualifies" her from public service.

"Any government employee who engaged in this kind of behavior would be barred from handling classified information," Trump said. "Again, that alone disqualifies her."

"That is the most confidential stuff," Trump said. "Classified. That's classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that."

"He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted," one Trump tweet in April 2018 said, with another saying Comey should be in jail.


And on, and on, and on.

But yeah, you can't really go to jail for being a hypocrite. Like everything else, I agree, he'll slither out of this, a few patsies will take the fall and we'll be back to business as usual with a run-up to his 2024 nomination.

All of those quotes are dependent of of these materials being classified and the something improper being done here. Those materials may not be classified.

That's rich. When it comes to the likes of Trump you're all "Innocent until proven guilty...", but when it comes to anyone left leaning it's "Guilty until proven innocent..."

How is that stop the steal working out for you? All of those dastardly democrats guilty of rigging an election, right?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9931 on: September 04, 2022, 08:14:32 AM »
"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government, '' Trump said in August 2016. "In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information," he said in September 2016.
Speaking in July of that year, Trump said Clinton's mishandling "disqualifies" her from public service.

"Any government employee who engaged in this kind of behavior would be barred from handling classified information," Trump said. "Again, that alone disqualifies her."

"That is the most confidential stuff," Trump said. "Classified. That's classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that."

"He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted," one Trump tweet in April 2018 said, with another saying Comey should be in jail.


And on, and on, and on.

But yeah, you can't really go to jail for being a hypocrite. Like everything else, I agree, he'll slither out of this, a few patsies will take the fall and we'll be back to business as usual with a run-up to his 2024 nomination.

All of those quotes are dependent of of these materials being classified and the something improper being done here. Those materials may not be classified.

That's rich. When it comes to the likes of Trump you're all "Innocent until proven guilty...", but when it comes to anyone left leaning it's "Guilty until proven innocent..."

How is that stop the steal working out for you? All of those dastardly democrats guilty of rigging an election, right?

I see this throughout facebook.  Tom is just parrotting everyone else. 

It seems to be a mix of feeling Trump is being unfairly attacked, lack of info about classified document handling procedures, and a 'If Obama and Hillary can do it, Trump can too!"

And when asked "Why didn't Trump persecute when he was president?" The answer is always either silence or "The DoJ is corrupt and shielding them".  Which means Trump did nothing to 'drain the swamp'.  Its always an excuse.  Even when Trump himself said he wouldn't persecute.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10241
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9932 on: September 04, 2022, 08:28:29 AM »
The difference between Hillary and Trump is that Hillary wasn't President and couldn't declassify documents with a word or a thought like the President could. There are no written checks or procedures on the President's power to declassify. This is why the courts will never convict Trump of this. There are no written presidential regulations and no standard to follow.

Hillary, on the other hand, knew that she had classified documents on her private server and knew that she was breaking the law.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2022, 08:31:27 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9933 on: September 04, 2022, 09:02:30 AM »
The difference between Hillary and Trump is that Hillary wasn't President and couldn't declassify documents with a word or a thought like the President could. There are no written checks or procedures on the President's power to declassify. This is why the courts will never convict Trump of this. There are no written presidential regulations and no standard to follow.

Hillary, on the other hand, knew that she had classified documents on her private server and knew that she was breaking the law.

A thought?

Well, that makes life easy.

Obama thought all documents hillary had were declassified.  Done. 
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9914
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9934 on: September 04, 2022, 12:23:04 PM »
Again, a bunch of the statutes cited in the search warrant have nothing to do with classification status.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: Trump
« Reply #9935 on: September 04, 2022, 02:43:22 PM »
all the kerfuffle over classification misses the point entirely. the search warrant specifies that the fbi was looking for evidence of crimes relating to three different statutes:
notice that literally none of these mention classifications or anything of the sort. all that controls is whether or not the information is vital to national security interests. because, as others have pointed out, these documents belong to the usfg, not trump.

that said, i think it's extremely unlikely that trump will ever be charged with anything. welcome to politics.

There are no written checks or procedures on the President's power to declassify. This is why the courts will never convict Trump of this. There are no written presidential regulations and no standard to follow.

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10241
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9936 on: September 04, 2022, 03:08:29 PM »
this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

Did you even bother to read through your link?

The author says that the matter is unclear. The author only points out that the law on nuclear secrets doesn't specifically give the president blanket power to declassify. The law does not specifically prohibit the existing declassification powers of the president. The law doesn't talk about it.

Quote
So can Trump declassify nuclear secrets?

...

For Restricted Data, the power of the president to declassify is even less clear. The updated version of the Atomic Energy Act that is currently on the books has detailed descriptions of how to remove information from the Restricted Data category. That process is initiated by the Department of Energy (as successor to the Atomic Energy Commission), not the president. The only explicit role the president has in this process is that if the Department of Energy and Department of Defense disagree on whether something should be declassified, the president acts as the tie-breaker. The president is given other explicit powers regarding Restricted Data, like the ability to direct the Department of Defense to share it with allied nations under certain circumstances (like planning for mutual defense, such as with NATO), but not declassification. The fact that the law does not explicitly give presidents the power to blanket declassify things, but does give them a role in declassification and other matters regarding Restricted Data, suggests that Congress’s intent was not to allow the president to declassify Restricted Data at will.

The author speculates on what "Congress's intent" was in the law not giving or specifically spelling out prohibitions on the president's power to declassify. The author admits that the law does not impose any specific inhabitation on presidential powers.

The author says that the law specifies a role for the president on acting as a tie breaker between two agencies when one of those agencies want to declassify something, but this is not a prohibition on existing presidential powers to say that the president's powers are otherwise limited.

The argument that because the president's existing declassification powers are not mentioned or controlled, that they must be because  of an unsaid intent, is pure speculation based on what a law does not bother to prohibit. This is an incredibly weak argument to say the least, and the author concedes that the matter is not clear.

An argument based on what a law does not prohibit isn't going to go anywhere. Laws must be specific. That argument would likely be thrown out for a number of reasons, such the Supreme Court's void-for-vagueness doctrine:

https://texaslawreview.org/vagueness-as-impossibility/

    "The void-for-vagueness doctrine dictates that unduly vague penal statutes will be considered void based on due process principles. The U.S. Supreme Court has grounded the doctrine in two rationales. First, vague penal statutes fail to inform the ordinary person of what is proscribed, thereby violating an essential aspect of due process: the requirement of fair notice. Second, vague penal statutes violate separation-of-powers and rule-of-law principles inherent in due process by delegating legislative authority to other actors in the criminal justice system: police, prosecutors, judges, and juries."

Since the author admits that the matter is unclear, the author therefore thinks the matter is vague.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2022, 04:28:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7023
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9937 on: September 04, 2022, 03:57:26 PM »
The difference between Hillary and Trump is that Hillary wasn't President and couldn't declassify documents with a word or a thought like the President could.
Even if Trump did have the right to declassify all of those documents (and I'm not saying that he did), those documents are still government property and he has no right to as a former president.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2064
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9938 on: September 04, 2022, 04:19:04 PM »
all the kerfuffle over classification misses the point entirely. the search warrant specifies that the fbi was looking for evidence of crimes relating to three different statutes:
notice that literally none of these mention classifications or anything of the sort. all that controls is whether or not the information is vital to national security interests. because, as others have pointed out, these documents belong to the usfg, not trump.

that said, i think it's extremely unlikely that trump will ever be charged with anything. welcome to politics.

There are no written checks or procedures on the President's power to declassify. This is why the courts will never convict Trump of this. There are no written presidential regulations and no standard to follow.

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified
All of those US codes are meaningless and demonstrate the entire story is just news fluff, just like the Russia, Russia, Russia crapola.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3441
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9939 on: September 04, 2022, 07:59:33 PM »
All of those US codes are meaningless and demonstrate the entire story is just news fluff, just like the Russia, Russia, Russia crapola.

What makes them meaningless? Because you somehow have the authority to deem US statutes, codes, & regulations meaningless? That's quite the awesome power you solely wield. Tell us more about your supreme level of authority.