Mar-A-Lago is raided by FBI agents

129,588 Views | 1135 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by grantwolf
BBW12OG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 8:24a, 8/17/22
Wanna dispute this? As you said in your own words...

"I dare you..." LMAO.. You are constantly asking for proof and to show proof. Well, since you can't ever seem to do it yourself for whatever reason put his in your pipe and smoke it.

Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
1
TheStorm
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 8:26a, 8/17/22
LOL. I forgot that Cheney is in Wyoming rather than Utah... Steve is in Utah.
Reply Quote
TheStorm
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jkpackfan • 8:29a, 8/17/22
jkpackfan said:
caryking said:

She is just an awful person. Her family has done more to destroy this country than most Democrats!
She is and it's absolutely hilarious seeing these dems defend her.
Especially when they absolutely loathed her father... but now they LOVE him! (See Mitt Romney for reference)
Reply Quote
2
BBW12OG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheStorm • 8:56a, 8/17/22
TheStorm said:
jkpackfan said:
caryking said:

She is just an awful person. Her family has done more to destroy this country than most Democrats!
She is and it's absolutely hilarious seeing these dems defend her.
Especially when they absolutely loathed her father... but now they LOVE him! (See Mitt Romney for reference)
Anyone ever used the word "hypocrisy" to describe the lefties??

Just asking!!!!!
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
1
Manny Sanguine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BBW12OG • 8:57a, 8/17/22
BBW12OG said:
Wanna dispute this? As you said in your own words...

"I dare you..." LMAO.. You are constantly asking for proof and to show proof. Well, since you can't ever seem to do it yourself for whatever reason put his in your pipe and smoke it.

First, I am touched that almost every post of yours is now either in response to me or contains a reference to me.

Second, Navy v. Egan holds that the president, as chief executive and commander in chief, has final authority over the granting of security clearances to individuals. It is also accepted that the president has broad authority to declassify materials, but can only do so while in office. However, I would think that reliance on such declassification as a defense to criminal charges - not that there are any pending now - would require some evidence of such declassification.

Not sure how you think any of that changes anything with respect to the boxes of documents removed from Mar-a-Lago bearing classification markings, including some marked "TS" or "TS/SCI", or any of the information contained in those documents. As I posted earlier, the statutes listed in the warrant do not rely on a particular classication status of the documents that were sought. A search warrant predicated on demonstrated probable cause of violations of those statutes would be proper regardless of whether the documents were properly declassified prior to Trump leaving office.

(I'll try to get to your 12/13 theses later, which are somewhat off topic for this thread, but will be busy for a while.)
Reply Quote
7
BBW12OG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 9:03a, 8/17/22
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BBW12OG • 9:10a, 8/17/22
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
ha, Charlie Brown 2.
Reply Quote
2
caryking
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BBW12OG • 9:11a, 8/17/22
BBW12OG said:
Gulfstream4 said:
caryking said:
She is just an awful person. Her family has done more to destroy this country than most Democrats!
That's why democrats love her.
But... just wait for the "usual suspects" to come on here and claim she's a Republican......LMAO...notice how they have totally abandoned the posts made showing the DOJ acted inappropriately.

The MSM morning shows have also been "silent" on the Mar-A-Lago raid as well.

And if someone is pissy about it being called a raid get the F over it. It's exactly what it was and exactly what the MSM called it until it polled badly for the MARXIST PARTY.

People like that are about as welcome in the GOP as Liz "Miss Piggy" Cheney.
BBW, I actually disagree with your narrative about Cheney. She is a Republican. In fact, she has a strong voting record supporting Trump. The problem is that she is also an Establishment Type person. Her, and her family, have been in the game for too long.

They fooled us in to believing the need for continuous wars. I bought in! I'll bet she would oppose a full on deconstruction of the administrative state. More importantly, I'll bet she is close with people like Gen. Milley...
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Reply Quote
1
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:12a, 8/17/22
Trump's lawyer signed a statement months ago that all classified documents had been turned over. This must be some sensitive stuff that the DOJ waits months and the AG toils over the decision for weeks to raid Mar a Lago. All signs point to this being a political hit job.
Reply Quote
1
Manny Sanguine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BBW12OG • 9:15a, 8/17/22
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.
Reply Quote
1
Werewolf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to caryking • 9:16a, 8/17/22
caryking said:
BBW12OG said:
Gulfstream4 said:
caryking said:
She is just an awful person. Her family has done more to destroy this country than most Democrats!
That's why democrats love her.
But... just wait for the "usual suspects" to come on here and claim she's a Republican......LMAO...notice how they have totally abandoned the posts made showing the DOJ acted inappropriately.

The MSM morning shows have also been "silent" on the Mar-A-Lago raid as well.

And if someone is pissy about it being called a raid get the F over it. It's exactly what it was and exactly what the MSM called it until it polled badly for the MARXIST PARTY.

People like that are about as welcome in the GOP as Liz "Miss Piggy" Cheney.
BBW, I actually disagree with your narrative about Cheney. She is a Republican. In fact, she has a strong voting record supporting Trump. The problem is that she is also an Establishment Type person. Her, and her family, have been in the game for too long.

They fooled us in to believing the need for continuous wars. I bought in! I'll bet she would oppose a full on deconstruction of the administrative state. More importantly, I'll bet she is close with people like Gen. Milley...
Cary, I'm w BBW on this one. The Establishment R's are controlled by the same people that control most of the Establishment D's. Uni-Party, you know it to be true too.
Reply Quote
BBW12OG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 9:19a, 8/17/22
packgrad said:
Trump's lawyer signed a statement months ago that all classified documents had been turned over. This must be some sensitive stuff that the DOJ waits months and the AG toils over the decision for weeks to raid Mar a Lago. All signs point to this being a political hit job.
18 months to retrieve classified/top secret documents, nuclear information etc...

Isn't that normal FBI proto call?

We will have to wait on our resident expert to weigh in and give us the "facts" as he has them from his MSM overlords!!!

The only thing funnier than watching these lefties get worked up over the next big "we got Trump this time" scandal is the stepping and fetching they do after it blows up and we get hit with "well, Trump did such and such which led to his second cousin's neighbor's niece get charged with having a late fee at Blockbuster from 1987."

Just wait til Manny comes back and tells us all how the 12 hoaxes I presented to the board that not one single lefty can argue with as all being real and having merit that stands on their own.

The lefties have such a desire to maintain power they resort to lying, cheating and stealing to keep it. They are so blind to the facts and are led around by their noses by the MSM propagandists they know they can try and get away with it.

Sit back and watch. It'll happen!
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 9:23a, 8/17/22
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
Reply Quote
2
caryking
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:26a, 8/17/22
The way I understand this is that a Top Secret document can have multiple copies created. How those copies are stored, I don't know... The only thing the President isn't allowed to hold onto, on a daily basis, is The Presidential Daily Briefings. They are accounted for and given back to someone (I don't know who) daily.

So, a document that was at Trumps home, marked as TS, has very likely been declassified, while Trump was in office. These documents were boxed, by staffers, and moved to MaraLago. Manny, I don't think anybody is questioning the thought of documents, being marked as TS, being at MaraLago, rather, were they blanketed by a Presidential declassification? Everything says "Yes", so far...

Based on what the Trump attorney's have said, they were... They also said Trump did not go through, personally to mark things as declassified and it was their responsibility, as attorneys, to do that work.

Based on my experience, working in executive offices, of business, I would "Never" do the task of accounting of certain things. That would be left for my assistant. Now, I'm not comparing my rolls to the Presidents; however, people in executive positions always have people to do task like this.
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Reply Quote
2
caryking
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Werewolf • 9:29a, 8/17/22
Werewolf said:
caryking said:
BBW12OG said:
Gulfstream4 said:
caryking said:
She is just an awful person. Her family has done more to destroy this country than most Democrats!
That's why democrats love her.
But... just wait for the "usual suspects" to come on here and claim she's a Republican......LMAO...notice how they have totally abandoned the posts made showing the DOJ acted inappropriately.

The MSM morning shows have also been "silent" on the Mar-A-Lago raid as well.

And if someone is pissy about it being called a raid get the F over it. It's exactly what it was and exactly what the MSM called it until it polled badly for the MARXIST PARTY.

People like that are about as welcome in the GOP as Liz "Miss Piggy" Cheney.
BBW, I actually disagree with your narrative about Cheney. She is a Republican. In fact, she has a strong voting record supporting Trump. The problem is that she is also an Establishment Type person. Her, and her family, have been in the game for too long.

They fooled us in to believing the need for continuous wars. I bought in! I'll bet she would oppose a full on deconstruction of the administrative state. More importantly, I'll bet she is close with people like Gen. Milley...
Cary, I'm w BBW on this one. The Establishment R's are controlled by the same people that control most of the Establishment D's. Uni-Party, you know it to be true too.
I understand what you are saying; however, you can't argue with ones recorded voting record. BTW, I absolutely think Cheney is part of the establishment. In fact the Republican establishment has been not much more than Controlled opposition. She fits the bill, perfectly.
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Reply Quote
2
Manny Sanguine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 9:38a, 8/17/22
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.
Reply Quote
4
BBW12OG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 9:41a, 8/17/22
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.
Wow...you have read the affidavit??? You are something else..... You know more than ANY news outlet including your MSM overlords....

Please share with us what documents they were looking for, what documents they seized that were still classified/top secret.

What a damn overinflated ego you have. After the gun control thread you disappeared for a while to lick your wounds.... you may want to consider tapping out before it gets that bad again if it hasn't already.

99% of your argument(s) are based solely on speculation and your opinion. But yet you claim them to be factual. Typical....
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
1
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 9:45a, 8/17/22
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Reply Quote
3
BBW12OG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 10:02a, 8/17/22
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
And the statutes are not "charges." They use the statutes to obtain the warrant. They could have listed whatever they wanted, i.e. kidnapping, harboring a fugitive, etc... if they think they have the evidence to prove it. Falsifying information to obtain a warrant is very bad. Unless you are a lefty. Ask Carter Paige.

Now why do you think they are fighting tooth and nail to keep that information that predicated the raid sealed? Because they came up with the same Jack Squat they have the previous 12 times. Now watch the judge, who is anti-Trump and it has been proven, keep the warrant sealed.

It will got through the appellate process and eventually be opened and proven to have been predicated on false information. Seen this before haven't we? All this was for was to deflect attention away from the Sleepy Joe Tax Hike Bill that he signed yesterday. That is the MARXIST PARTY'S method of operation.

They badly misplayed their hand on this one and it is obvious.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
2
Manny Sanguine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 10:02a, 8/17/22
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.
Reply Quote
1
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 10:09a, 8/17/22
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.


Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.
Reply Quote
4
BBW12OG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 10:12a, 8/17/22
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.
Key word: POTENTIAL

You are predicating your entire argument on hypotheticals. You are a very good follower comrade. Very obedient and very subservient to the needs and wishes of the party.

Now once it's declassified he can release it to the public. Fact. And by declassifying it he is allowed to do with it as he pleases.

You have no idea what documents are in question do you? NO.

You have no idea if the documents in question are/were classified/declassified? NO.

You have no more information that anyone else reading the same damn information you have do you? NO.

You only know what the rest of us do right? YES. (and that is debatable considering your posts)

Has it been proven that the DOJ/FBI have already violated President Trump's Constitutional Rights? YES.

Are you butthurt once again that you missed the football Charlie Brown? YES.

Will you once again swallow hook, line and sinker the next big hoax against President Trump a few weeks before the midterms, repeat the MSM talking points and miss the damn football again? YES.

Keep up the good work comrade. Like I said, you are a very obedient party member. Just keep following your marching orders and you will never have to put forth effort to think for yourself.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
2
Manny Sanguine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 10:14a, 8/17/22
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.


Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.
The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?
Reply Quote
1
ncsualum05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:17a, 8/17/22
Tell me we live in a banana republic without telling me we live in a banana republic.
Reply Quote
1
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 10:22a, 8/17/22
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.


Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.
The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?


So going the obtuse route you're going, the DOJ can legally search your home if you have books on the F14 Tomcat and the F15 Eagle and a picture of a tank because it meets the definitions of code 793. Sure thing, pal.

The affidavit sure better show the information was to be used to the injury of the United States.

The declassification is relevant and considering the angle you are taking absolutely speaks to the propriety of the warrant.
Reply Quote
3
3 edits
caryking
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 10:25a, 8/17/22
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.


Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.
The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?
Help me with this...

The President has plenary powers to declassify any document, right? Why would he have this power?
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…

“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”

Joe Biden
Reply Quote
2
BBW12OG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 10:27a, 8/17/22
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.


Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.
The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?


So going the obtuse route you're going, the DOJ can legally search your home if you haves book on the F14 Tomcat and the F15 Eagle and a picture of a tank because it meets the definitions of code 793. Sure thing, pal.

The declassification is relevant.
I just saw a screen shot of Manny.....

Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
Manny Sanguine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 10:43a, 8/17/22
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.


Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.
The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?


So going the obtuse route you're going, the DOJ can legally search your home if you have books on the F14 Tomcat and the F15 Eagle and a picture of a tank because it meets the definitions of code 793. Sure thing, pal.

The affidavit sure better show the information was to be used to the injury of the United States.

The declassification is relevant.
Is your hypothetical book about the f-14 something that would be "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," which is part of what the statute provides as a standard? If not, then couldn't be the basis of a search warrant.

Can a document, even after declassification, still include "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?" If yes, then documents bearing classification markings including "TS" or "TS/SCI" could be the basis of a proper search warrant.

At this point we know, without any real dispute, that documents bearing those marking were removed from Mar-a-Lago during the search. A determination of whether anyone is changed with criminal violations based on those documents would have to be based on a review of the contents of those documents. However, it seems unreasonable to say that the search has to be based on the contents of documents that had not yet been recovered or reviewed.
Reply Quote
1
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 10:47a, 8/17/22
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.


Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.
The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?


So going the obtuse route you're going, the DOJ can legally search your home if you have books on the F14 Tomcat and the F15 Eagle and a picture of a tank because it meets the definitions of code 793. Sure thing, pal.

The affidavit sure better show the information was to be used to the injury of the United States.

The declassification is relevant.
Is your hypothetical book about the f-14 something that would be "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," which is part of what the statute provides as a standard? If not, then couldn't be the basis of a search warrant.

Can a document, even after declassification, still include "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?" If yes, then documents bearing classification markings including "TS" or "TS/SCI" could be the basis of a proper search warrant.

At this point we know, without any real dispute, that documents bearing those marking were removed from Mar-a-Lago during the search. A determination of whether anyone is changed with criminal violations based on those documents would have to be based on a review of the contents of those documents. However, it seems unreasonable to say that the search has to be based on the contents of documents that had not yet been recovered or reviewed.


Yes. The books meet the criteria mentioned.

Grumman F-14 Tomcat Owners' Workshop Manual: All models 1970-2006 - Insights into operating and maintaining the US Navy's legendary variable geometry carrier-based air superiority fighter https://a.co/d/jl1N3eK

Declassification is relevant unless the propriety of the warrant isn't.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
BBW12OG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 10:52a, 8/17/22
I asked you this earlier...

Do you honestly think they use white out to remove the status classification on all documents.

It has already been said ad nauseam that documents may still have the classification of classified/top secret but have been declassified.

That seems to be the entire premise of your argument and that is like a dog chasing its' tail.

Turn the damn page dude.... You are talking in circles.

You seem to have some time... discuss the previous 12 BS hoaxes and enlighten us with how they were legit.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
2
Manny Sanguine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 11:02a, 8/17/22
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.


Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.
The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?


So going the obtuse route you're going, the DOJ can legally search your home if you have books on the F14 Tomcat and the F15 Eagle and a picture of a tank because it meets the definitions of code 793. Sure thing, pal.

The affidavit sure better show the information was to be used to the injury of the United States.

The declassification is relevant.
Is your hypothetical book about the f-14 something that would be "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," which is part of what the statute provides as a standard? If not, then couldn't be the basis of a search warrant.

Can a document, even after declassification, still include "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?" If yes, then documents bearing classification markings including "TS" or "TS/SCI" could be the basis of a proper search warrant.

At this point we know, without any real dispute, that documents bearing those marking were removed from Mar-a-Lago during the search. A determination of whether anyone is changed with criminal violations based on those documents would have to be based on a review of the contents of those documents. However, it seems unreasonable to say that the search has to be based on the contents of documents that had not yet been recovered or reviewed.


Yes. The books meet the criteria mentioned.

Grumman F-14 Tomcat Owners' Workshop Manual: All models 1970-2006 - Insights into operating and maintaining the US Navy's legendary variable geometry carrier-based air superiority fighter https://a.co/d/jl1N3eK

Declassification is relevant unless the propriety of the warrant isn't.
So your conception is that a book available on Amazon would be subject to The Espionage Act as "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?" Not sure how information that is already public domain (i.e., a book for sale on Amazon) could, in any way, be "used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" considering that such adversaries would presumably already have that public domain information.

Seems to me that information could be secret (i.e., not already in the public domain) and "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" regardless of whether it was declassified by the president using his acknowledged powers to declassify documents. If it was secret and "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" a minute before he declassified it, then it would still be those things a minute after he declassified it.
Reply Quote
4
bigeric
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:11a, 8/17/22
We keep going around and around while ignoring the 800# gorilla in the room.

There is one person, and one person only, who can classify any information as injurious to the national interests.
There is one person, and one person only, who can determine any information is injurious to the national interests.
There is one person, and one person only, who can determine any information is no longer injurious to the national interest.
There is one person, and one person only, who can declassify any information no longer determined injurious to the national interests.

By EO, that person can specifically designate another, or others, to act in their stead, without ceding ultimate authority.

It ain't a freshman House member from NC-13.
Reply Quote
1
packgrad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manny Sanguine • 11:14a, 8/17/22
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.


Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.
The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?


So going the obtuse route you're going, the DOJ can legally search your home if you have books on the F14 Tomcat and the F15 Eagle and a picture of a tank because it meets the definitions of code 793. Sure thing, pal.

The affidavit sure better show the information was to be used to the injury of the United States.

The declassification is relevant.
Is your hypothetical book about the f-14 something that would be "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," which is part of what the statute provides as a standard? If not, then couldn't be the basis of a search warrant.

Can a document, even after declassification, still include "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?" If yes, then documents bearing classification markings including "TS" or "TS/SCI" could be the basis of a proper search warrant.

At this point we know, without any real dispute, that documents bearing those marking were removed from Mar-a-Lago during the search. A determination of whether anyone is changed with criminal violations based on those documents would have to be based on a review of the contents of those documents. However, it seems unreasonable to say that the search has to be based on the contents of documents that had not yet been recovered or reviewed.


Yes. The books meet the criteria mentioned.

Grumman F-14 Tomcat Owners' Workshop Manual: All models 1970-2006 - Insights into operating and maintaining the US Navy's legendary variable geometry carrier-based air superiority fighter https://a.co/d/jl1N3eK

Declassification is relevant unless the propriety of the warrant isn't.
So your conception is that a book available on Amazon would be subject to The Espionage Act as "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?" Not sure how information that is already public domain (i.e., a book for sale on Amazon) could, in any way, be "used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" considering that such adversaries would presumably already have that public domain information.

Seems to me that information could be secret (i.e., not already in the public domain) and "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" regardless of whether it was declassified by the president using his acknowledged powers to declassify documents. If it was secret and "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" a minute before he declassified it, then it would still be those things a minute after he declassified it.


Are we not being obtuse anymore? Show me in the code where it differentiates books on Amazon as it relates to national defense? Seemed pretty broad in scope to me. Where in the code does it differentiate between secret and classified?

Seems to me declassification of the documents should be relevant to any objective person.
Reply Quote
3
BBW12OG
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to packgrad • 11:17a, 8/17/22
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
packgrad said:
Manny Sanguine said:
BBW12OG said:
Ha Ha!! Even when faced with the proof you are still the smartest man in the room....... Not sure whether to laugh or applaud.

Do you think they "re-issue" documents? Do you think they go in with whiteout and cover up the markings on the documents? They don't.

All you are doing is taking information from headlines that the MSM propaganda machine put out to keep this BS story in front of mindless sheep. Notice how this story has all of a sudden taken a back burner and fallen out of the non-stop coverage? You know why don't you? Because it's about to blow up like the previous 12 hoaxes did.

The quickest way to know that the media has lost it's desire to run with a story is when they quit the non-stop coverage and sensationalizing it. I liken it to when there is a mass shooting and the shooter is black. Crickets. You know why that is don't you? It doesn't fit the narrative when a black person shoots several people. It's as common as the paper being delivered on Sunday. And you know that too.

It's OK.. after being butthurt so many times before I can see why you are willing to go down with the ship.

You keep kicking that football Charlie Brown...
Hooray! You proved that the president has broad authority to declassiy documents (something I have never disputed).

However, you haven't addressed the fact that any such declassification is irrelevant to the statutes listed in the warrant or the propriety of the warrant.

I guess, in keeping with the motif, I'll say: You keep holding that football, Lucy, until I return.


The statutes listed in the warrant affidavit that hasn't been released? How can you speak to the statutes and propriety of the warrant when the affidavit hasn't been released, and the DOJ is fighting the release?
The predicate statutes are listed in the search warrant that was unsealed last week.


Ok. I see what you're talking about.

But the declassification is relevant to the statutes listed in the warrant, at least as it relates to section 793.
Here's a link to 18 U.S.C. 793 and here's what I posted earlier about that statute:

Quote:
Take 18 U.S. Code 793 (a/k/a "The Espionage Act"), for example. That statute does not refer at all to classification levels. Rather, it uses phrases like "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." Information designated "TS/SCI" would necessarily meet this definition.

A potential problem for Trump is that, even if he could declassify any and all documents with out any memorialization either before, during, or after, he cannot change the essential nature of the information contained in those documents. If the information met the definitions of 18 U.S. Code 793 before he declassified the document then it still met that definition after he did so.
I would be interested in what you see in the statute that would provide a defense based on prior declassification of a document.


Because it's not illegal to have documents about national defense. The issue is having classified documents about national defense.
The word "classified" (or any word or phrase related specifically to classification) does not appear in the statute. What part of the statute do you see that limits is applicability to classified documents?


So going the obtuse route you're going, the DOJ can legally search your home if you have books on the F14 Tomcat and the F15 Eagle and a picture of a tank because it meets the definitions of code 793. Sure thing, pal.

The affidavit sure better show the information was to be used to the injury of the United States.

The declassification is relevant.
Is your hypothetical book about the f-14 something that would be "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," which is part of what the statute provides as a standard? If not, then couldn't be the basis of a search warrant.

Can a document, even after declassification, still include "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?" If yes, then documents bearing classification markings including "TS" or "TS/SCI" could be the basis of a proper search warrant.

At this point we know, without any real dispute, that documents bearing those marking were removed from Mar-a-Lago during the search. A determination of whether anyone is changed with criminal violations based on those documents would have to be based on a review of the contents of those documents. However, it seems unreasonable to say that the search has to be based on the contents of documents that had not yet been recovered or reviewed.


Yes. The books meet the criteria mentioned.

Grumman F-14 Tomcat Owners' Workshop Manual: All models 1970-2006 - Insights into operating and maintaining the US Navy's legendary variable geometry carrier-based air superiority fighter https://a.co/d/jl1N3eK

Declassification is relevant unless the propriety of the warrant isn't.
So your conception is that a book available on Amazon would be subject to The Espionage Act as "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?" Not sure how information that is already public domain (i.e., a book for sale on Amazon) could, in any way, be "used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" considering that such adversaries would presumably already have that public domain information.

Seems to me that information could be secret (i.e., not already in the public domain) and "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" regardless of whether it was declassified by the president using his acknowledged powers to declassify documents. If it was secret and "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" a minute before he declassified it, then it would still be those things a minute after he declassified it.


Are we not being obtuse anymore? Show me in the code where it differentiates books on Amazon as it relates to national defense? Seemed pretty broad in scope to me. Where in the code does it differentiate between secret and classified?

Seems to me declassification of the documents should be relevant to any objective person.
He's done. When he loses an argument he disappears. Notice how he has ignored my obvious question to him and yet he is doubling down on his BS. He lost a few posts ago and knows it. Typical....

He will keep running you in circles. Let it go.... he's not willing to accept he lost and had a BS premise he was arguing anyway.

I asked for facts from him... nada. zilch. nothing. zero.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
Manny Sanguine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BBW12OG • 11:18a, 8/17/22
BBW12OG said:
I asked you this earlier...

Do you honestly think they use white out to remove the status classification on all documents.

It has already been said ad nauseam that documents may still have the classification of classified/top secret but have been declassified.

That seems to be the entire premise of your argument and that is like a dog chasing its' tail.

Turn the damn page dude.... You are talking in circles.

You seem to have some time... discuss the previous 12 BS hoaxes and enlighten us with how they were legit.
Yeah, I thought I was just dropping in for a quick post before burrowing into work, but turned into more of a conversation than expected.

Your 12/13 theses will take a bigger block of time than I can spare now. Sorry to keep you waiting. Try to relax and take your mind off it.

Now if you want me to take some time off and review your 12/13 theses, you can pay my usual hourly rate. Should only cost you a couple grand.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.