Laws have never been a thing for president's. You seem to be missing that
Society Dark Winter 2.0
- Thread starter sparkuri
- Start date
@Filthy knows that but thinks Trump should be the starting point and it’s not at all political.
Day of. Their silence is deafening.
U got so many answers on this, almost like you didn't deter and discourage forum diversity.
i answered your direct question.
the presence of the secret service doesn't not a secure site make, FFS
Thanks, man.
EDIT - to be clear, it's not political to me. It's a question of Rule of Law. And I think the motives of the prosecution are irrelevant, same as with Hillary or Hunter or Pelosi or Eye-Patch McCain.
Last edited:
do you believe in the theory of the Unitary Executive? What's the difference between a Unitary Executive and a King?
how does that reconcile with separation of powers and the US Constitution?
Is Trump president, or did any of this activity happen while he was president?
No, you went on a non sequitur about how it's not a secure site.
Firstly, I don't understand what point you're attempting to make. Secondly, please settle down with the answering questions with 14 questions of your own. It muddies the conversation for no reason. It's what made JLP impossible to converse with.
by definition, it's not a secure site. I used to validate secure sites, I know what's required. "A couple Secret Service guys hanging out" doesn't make a site compliant with TS site security requirements. It was illegal, even if he had the entire US Military surrounding the site. It's just the law.
You refuse to answer direct questions. Just answer. Take them one at a time, read slow if you have to.
That's all a secure site is. You're getting bogged down in letter of the law rather than acknowledging spirit of the law. You're also operating under the assumption that the FBI is being completely honest.
Ask one and I'll be happy to answer. If you spam them, then I don't care. It's a dishonest debate tactic that is only ever employed online.
no, that is not what a secure site is...keep repeating an untruth and see if you can make it truer.
and LoL at "spirit vs letter" of the law. Keeping classified documents in an unsecure location is illegal. Having a couple Dept. of Treasury guys on site doesn't make a site secure. Unless you think that the cleaning lady who had access to the facility had a TS-SCI clearance. Because at a secure site, the janitor has a TS-SCI clearance. Just one of the many things that differentiates a secure facility from a place with guards.
Was Trump the president when he stored classified material illegally, or when he lied to the DoJ about returning all of the documents he took?
I'd be very surprised if anyone working in that section didn't have security clearance given that it was his out of Washington office during his presidency. I'd also be surprised if you didn't know that top secret documents go into "unsecure" locations frequently because the documents are attached to the holder.
No clue. Last time I read anything about it what they're investigating was a secret. The warrant was also a secret.
oh, well if you'd be very surprised I guess we should suspend the rules regarding the handling of classified information.
TS documents aren't routinely stored in unsecure locations. TS documents aren't attached to the holder, you have to sign out TS documents from secure storage.
None of that is what happened here. Someone without proper clearance took the information and withheld it from secure storage.
that's a crime.
the fact that he withheld the return of the documents after his presidency is the reason cited in by the DoJ.
but don't let your complete ignorance stop you from pontificating on the matter.
That's the same thing.
I'm pretty sure the president has the proper clearance.
So it wasn't a crime for 16 months, but all of a sudden at month 17 is a matter of national security?
no, it's not. You have to retain the information under your positive control or return it to secure storage. Every document has a designated storage location. You have to document movement from one storage to another.
he absolutely DOES NOT. Proper clearance requires 3 things:
1) a security clearance at or above the level of the information being accessed
2) proper identification when retrieving the information from secure storage
3) A NEED TO KNOW.
By definition, a former POTUS does not have the 3rd requirement.
But again, don't let your complete ignorance of the handling of classified information stop you from making dumb comments to someone who actually had a TS-SCI clearance for several years.
It was always a crime, it wasn't prosecuted until it became clear that he was lying about returning all of the information. If he'd returned the information when they asked, 16 months ago, he wouldn't be facing subpoenas and warrants today.
Almost none of this is true.
The allegation is that he took stuff when he was president, so yes. He would have had adequate clearance.
This is very obviously a political play. If the documents he had were sensitive enough to do something this unprecedented, they're also too sensitive to just ask nicely and wait a year and a half in hopes they come back. I personally don't care that Trump gets charged for comitting a crime, but let's not pretend this is what he should be getting charged for. We should also keep in mind what this means going forward.
who did your TS indoc?
or is that too hard of a question to answer...
Again, that's not how clearance works. As soon as you lose "Need To Know" it becomes illegal for you to possess that information. The DoJ gave him almost a year and half to return the stuff he had. So assuming he was in possession of classified material, take your felony and go to jail.
thanks for assigning motive, which is completely irrelevant. What's unprecedented is a former POTUS retaining state secrets and then lying to the current POTUS about the location of said information. Going forward, this means that any former executive is still accountable to the Rule of Law. Let's keep this mojo working and apply it to sitting POTUS, too.
No one, I lived with the person who did DND's procurement for 5 years.
Motive is all that's relevant. It's the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.
Current POTUS said he knew nothing about the situation at all when asked.
Yeah, I heard Bush, Obama and Clinton are about to be served with warrants too.
So you've never had a security clearance or handled classified information, but you know from proximity of someone who did financial data.
LoL. You're out of your league.
we're talking about motivation of the prosecution, which is irrelevant, not motive of the accused. And motive isn't the difference between murder and Man1. Motive is not intent.
LoL. You're out of your league.
doesn't matter, his appointed representation knew and I'm sure they can produce billable hours if he actually tried to sue them for defrauding him. Not believable, and even if it was, not a defense.
LoL. You're out of your league.
Are you aware of an investigation which they are obstructing? Because that would be relevant. Trump is no martyr, and he signed in to law the act which he is being prosecuted under. So even if they did THE EXACT SAME THING, it would be ex post facto and not illegal.
LoL. You're out of your league.
