leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4 Posted January 4 7 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: Literally, none of you answered my question What’s your question, Johnny? I’ll take a stab at it.
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Posted January 4 13 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: What’s your question, Johnny? I’ll take a stab at it. It’s right there on my purse towards the end If Trump is convicted, his elected, president, and pardons himself, will you still tote the political party line?
ChiGoose Posted January 4 Posted January 4 45 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Not true. Withholding classified documents is arguably a run of the mill non-event, regardless of how and why they were taken into possession, regardless of whether or not classified material was potentially accessed by people without clearance, whether the handling was reckless or items vital to our national security are lost track of, and whether or not a pattern of behavior can be assumed when material are removed over multiple years from multiple different locations, so long as the Sergeant Schulz defense is raised. This is wrong. Taking or misplacing classified material is a grave issue and is treated as such by the law when such action is provably intentional. Unauthorized access to sensitive defense materials can jeopardize sources and methods, and can even get people killed. 1
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Posted January 4 Just now, ChiGoose said: This is wrong. Taking or misplacing classified material is a grave issue and is treated as such by the law when such action is provably intentional. Unauthorized access to sensitive defense materials can jeopardize sources and methods, and can even get people killed. It’s absolutely wrong And I know this because I have experience in this field 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: This is wrong. Taking or misplacing classified material is a grave issue and is treated as such by the law when such action is provably intentional. Unauthorized access to sensitive defense materials can jeopardize sources and methods, and can even get people killed. The actual issue that is illegal is not that he took the documents. He’s allowed to take them, but whenever they’re asked for back and he refuses to give them and move them so that they cannot be located intentionally that is a crime. 1
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted January 4 Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: This is wrong. Taking or misplacing classified material is a grave issue and is treated as such by the law when such action is provably intentional. Unauthorized access to sensitive defense materials can jeopardize sources and methods, and can even get people killed. Unless it happens over a period of many years and can be considered spillage that low level staffers are mostly responsible for. Was that an attempt at parody? If not, maybe we can revisit some of your earlier posts on the topic. Good heavens. 2
ChiGoose Posted January 4 Posted January 4 1 minute ago, JDHillFan said: Unless it happens over a period of many years and can be considered spillage that low level staffers are mostly responsible for. Was that an attempt at parody? If not, maybe we can revisit some of your earlier posts on the topic. Good heavens. It’s pretty telling that explaining real and actual facts is taken as parody by people who prefer to reject reality in favor of their feelings.
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted January 4 Posted January 4 16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: It’s pretty telling that explaining real and actual facts is taken as parody by people who prefer to reject reality in favor of their feelings. I thought you jumped the shark with your “everyone’s talking about sex because gay people exist” and “human trafficking across state lines” routines. This is magnificent!
ChiGoose Posted January 4 Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: I thought you jumped the shark with your “everyone’s talking about sex because gay people exist” and “human trafficking across state lines” routines. This is magnificent! Reading comprehension is really tough, huh?
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4 Posted January 4 14 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: It’s right there on my purse towards the end If Trump is convicted, his elected, president, and pardons himself, will you still tote the political party line? I said I’d take a stab at it, and I will. Before doing so, I have to tell you that I have no idea what you mean by “tote the political party line”. My core principals are conservative, though I’d consider myself liberal on many issues. Very generally— I would prefer a candidate that believes in a smaller, more effective federal government, resolving mess at the mess at our southern border, work toward a sensible immigration policy that takes into consideration all that might want to come, reduction in federal income tax rates, and a healthy balance between onerous regulation, a sensible approach to growth/business and protecting the environment. If that candidate was a one legged person of color LBGTQ+ democrat today, I’d vote for them. So, if Trump is elected (and I would prefer he not run), convicted and pardoned himself….it would have no impact on my core beliefs. I don’t “tote a political party line” now John, I just vote like every other American who chooses to do so. If that means that someone else somehow feels compelled to castigate or criticize me for my choice, well, I’m not inclined to care. 2 1
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Posted January 4 I told the party line I mean, if you’re Republican, you don’t want anything to happen to Republicans because of power so in someway, we try to justify someone found guilty of a federal crime pardoning themselves
BillsFanNC Posted January 4 Posted January 4 19 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: I thought you jumped the shark with your “everyone’s talking about sex because gay people exist” and “human trafficking across state lines” routines. This is magnificent! The King!
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4 Posted January 4 34 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: This is wrong. Taking or misplacing classified material is a grave issue and is treated as such by the law when such action is provably intentional. Unauthorized access to sensitive defense materials can jeopardize sources and methods, and can even get people killed. Yeah, I would have thought so too, until, you know. “Provably intentional” has been revealed as the most recent legal weaslese to convince people that some folks possessing, maintaining and treating classified material with reckless abandon is really not a big deal when certain people are involved. Here’s the way it really plays out: taking, possessing, holding, hiding, slinging, flipping and bouncing top secret and classified information that could jeopardize sources and methods, and get some people killed, is a glorified speed bump for the right type of people. There is the law, the lofty goal, the trust placed in those responsible for our greatest secrets, and then there’s the guy who possessed all sorts of material from all sorts of stops and stashed them near the recyclable can in his lake house. His defense…”Geesh, how would I know? Not my fault!”. In theory, serious. In practice, no big deal. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 4 Posted January 4 (edited) 20 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: I told the party line I mean, if you’re Republican, you don’t want anything to happen to Republicans because of power so in someway, we try to justify someone found guilty of a federal crime pardoning themselves It’s weird, because not that long ago PUTIN was one buzzword for some people and RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS was another. Partnering with CHINA was a problem, and MSB was evil and needed to be DEALT WITH. Now, people who were outraged aren’t so outraged about the close ties our current president and his immediate family has with RUSSIA, OLIGARCHS, CHINA and MSB. People justify, consider cleaning up your own house before worrying about mine. Edited January 4 by leh-nerd skin-erd
BillStime Posted January 4 Posted January 4 19 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: It’s weird, because not that long ago PUTIN was one buzzword for some people and RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS was another. Partnering with CHINA was a problem, and MSB was evil and needed to be DEALT WITH. Now, people who were outraged aren’t so outraged about the close ties our current president and his immediate family has with RUSSIA, OLIGARCHS, CHINA and MSB. People justify, consider cleaning up your own house before worrying about mine. You really try so hard. Do you believe in Santa, too?
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Posted January 4 32 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: It’s weird, because not that long ago PUTIN was one buzzword for some people and RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS was another. Partnering with CHINA was a problem, and MSB was evil and needed to be DEALT WITH. Now, people who were outraged aren’t so outraged about the close ties our current president and his immediate family has with RUSSIA, OLIGARCHS, CHINA and MSB. People justify, consider cleaning up your own house before worrying about mine. Dude 1
Doc Posted January 4 Posted January 4 3 hours ago, John from Riverside said: The difference is you don’t see Democrats storming the capital No, they just destroyed cities for months on end, leading to far worse consequences for the country than the afternoon of stupidity. 45 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Yeah, I would have thought so too, until, you know. “Provably intentional” has been revealed as the most recent legal weaslese to convince people that some folks possessing, maintaining and treating classified material with reckless abandon is really not a big deal when certain people are involved. Here’s the way it really plays out: taking, possessing, holding, hiding, slinging, flipping and bouncing top secret and classified information that could jeopardize sources and methods, and get some people killed, is a glorified speed bump for the right type of people. There is the law, the lofty goal, the trust placed in those responsible for our greatest secrets, and then there’s the guy who possessed all sorts of material from all sorts of stops and stashed them near the recyclable can in his lake house. His defense…”Geesh, how would I know? Not my fault!”. In theory, serious. In practice, no big deal. This. To pay homage to Chi, a "will someone not rid me..." tactic.
ChiGoose Posted January 4 Posted January 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Yeah, I would have thought so too, until, you know. “Provably intentional” has been revealed as the most recent legal weaslese to convince people that some folks possessing, maintaining and treating classified material with reckless abandon is really not a big deal when certain people are involved. Here’s the way it really plays out: taking, possessing, holding, hiding, slinging, flipping and bouncing top secret and classified information that could jeopardize sources and methods, and get some people killed, is a glorified speed bump for the right type of people. There is the law, the lofty goal, the trust placed in those responsible for our greatest secrets, and then there’s the guy who possessed all sorts of material from all sorts of stops and stashed them near the recyclable can in his lake house. His defense…”Geesh, how would I know? Not my fault!”. In theory, serious. In practice, no big deal. Nah, it's been pretty straightforward the entire time. Simple possession is insufficient to prove intent, but contextual facts can prove intent and secure a guilty verdict. To keep the politics out of it, imagine some high up military officer like a four star general is retiring to private life. This individual has access to a lot of classified information, some of which may be in their office at any given time. When they are getting ready to leave, it isn't the officer themself who is packing up every item in their office, it's other staffers. We would hope that these people would have good controls over what things are personal and can go home with the officer and what belongs to the government and is not allowed to leave, but that process is clearly broken and in need of serious reform. So maybe some things go to the officer's home that shouldn't have. If and when the officer discovers this, they are obligated to immediately notify the government. Maybe it is right after they move in as they unpack everything, maybe it is some time down the line because they just stacked some stuff in a room or corner and didn't get around to going through it right away. In any case, their initial possession is insufficient to prove a crime (because doing so requires intent) but they need to turn it over the moment they are aware. Even if you assume bad intentions, there is still a way out for the officer. Maybe they mixed government documents into their personal effects so they would be packed and sent to their home so the officer could use them for their personal gain. Even in that scenario, the officer can avoid prosecution by claiming they didn't know this happened and notified the government the moment they learned of the "mistake." If the government is unable to provide evidence that points towards intent (i.e. the officer admitted to others that they knew they had it, or they were meeting with individuals and providing them the government docs / information), then they won’t be able to press charges. Literally, the only way that the officer could be prosecuted would be if the government could prove that they knew that they possessed government property and refused to turn it over. While simple possession is insufficient to prove this in a court of law, efforts to conceal or deceive can provide evidence of intent. And if the officer is dumb enough to tell the government "yes, I have this stuff but I am not turning it over," they are basically admitting to a crime. Edited January 4 by ChiGoose
John from Riverside Posted January 4 Posted January 4 18 minutes ago, Doc said: No, they just destroyed cities for months on end, leading to far worse consequences for the country than the afternoon of stupidity. This. To pay homage to Chi, a "will someone not rid me..." tactic. The last time I checked, those cities were still there
Recommended Posts