Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(06-11-2023, 07:13 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2023, 10:11 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Not true.   There is no due process.   As president he can declassified anything at any time.   He doesn't have to report or document it.  That's why something like this has never happened before.  Heck of a thing to risk a civil war over.

I'm not talking about due process.  I'm talking about logic. How is anyone else supposed to know what is classified or not if the President doesn't make some sort of written or recorded statement when he decides to change the classification status of something?

Your logic is immaterial to the charge.

(06-11-2023, 08:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 07:13 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not talking about due process.  I'm talking about logic. How is anyone else supposed to know what is classified or not if the President doesn't make some sort of written or recorded statement when he decides to change the classification status of something?

Your logic is immaterial to the charge.

If his defense is, "I declassified it and it's declassified," there has to be evidence he actually did and believed he did before his term ended.  Yet we have audio where he says, as a private citizen, "that document there is still classified." So he didn't declassify, and he never claimed he declassified until he realized he was in legal trouble over it.

(06-11-2023, 09:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 08:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Your logic is immaterial to the charge.

If his defense is, "I declassified it and it's declassified," there has to be evidence he actually did and believed he did before his term ended.  Yet we have audio where he says, as a private citizen, "that document there is still classified." So he didn't declassify, and he never claimed he declassified until he realized he was in legal trouble over it.

Can i change my screen name to Desantis24.  

This is still straight forward legally, he's the star witness because he determined the classification.   He can also determine who it's appropriate to share with. 

He can say whatever he wants to whoever he wants.   

Politically this is just sloppy undisciplined and stupid.  We're going to go back to Gettysburg because he didn't have an entry exit tracking system?   Face palm!

(06-11-2023, 09:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 08:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Your logic is immaterial to the charge.

If his defense is, "I declassified it and it's declassified," there has to be evidence he actually did and believed he did before his term ended.  Yet we have audio where he says, as a private citizen, "that document there is still classified." So he didn't declassify, and he never claimed he declassified until he realized he was in legal trouble over it.

Not for anything in his possession or that he is sharing with others.

Any docs he doesn't physically have do require a request to be made because of the procedures that are defined.

A request doesn't have to be made if he verbally shares information. If he shares it, it is deemed unclassified.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

(06-11-2023, 11:41 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 09:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If his defense is, "I declassified it and it's declassified," there has to be evidence he actually did and believed he did before his term ended.  Yet we have audio where he says, as a private citizen, "that document there is still classified." So he didn't declassify, and he never claimed he declassified until he realized he was in legal trouble over it.

Not for anything in his possession or that he is sharing with others.

Any docs he doesn't physically have do require a request to be made because of the procedures that are defined.

A request doesn't have to be made if he verbally shares information. If he shares it, it is deemed unclassified.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

I wonder how many documents Eeyore shared with Winnie..

(06-11-2023, 11:41 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 09:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If his defense is, "I declassified it and it's declassified," there has to be evidence he actually did and believed he did before his term ended.  Yet we have audio where he says, as a private citizen, "that document there is still classified." So he didn't declassify, and he never claimed he declassified until he realized he was in legal trouble over it.

Not for anything in his possession or that he is sharing with others.

Any docs he doesn't physically have do require a request to be made because of the procedures that are defined.

A request doesn't have to be made if he verbally shares information. If he shares it, it is deemed unclassified.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

The bolded is correct.  A sitting President can declassify information simply by sharing it verbally.  Trump was not a sitting President at this time.  Once a President is a private citizen, legally he must not disclose some of the things he knows, verbally or otherwise.  

The rest is wrong.

(06-11-2023, 09:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 08:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Your logic is immaterial to the charge.

If his defense is, "I declassified it and it's declassified," there has to be evidence he actually did and believed he did before his term ended.  Yet we have audio where he says, as a private citizen, "that document there is still classified." So he didn't declassify, and he never claimed he declassified until he realized he was in legal trouble over it.

No, because what anyone else believes in immaterial to his authority. He can do what he did, end of story. Now, if the legislature and the judiciary wish to more clearly define that authority I would endorse that approach, but to say, at this time, that he did something he did not have the authority to do, well...that's retrospective action and clearly only being done for political purposes. Meanwhile, the current resident of the Oval Office had documents that the VP was not authorized to posses strewn about his personal properties and no one gives a [BLEEP]. Because this isn't about documents, it's about candidacy.

(06-11-2023, 01:45 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 09:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If his defense is, "I declassified it and it's declassified," there has to be evidence he actually did and believed he did before his term ended.  Yet we have audio where he says, as a private citizen, "that document there is still classified." So he didn't declassify, and he never claimed he declassified until he realized he was in legal trouble over it.

No, because what anyone else believes in immaterial to his authority. He can do what he did, end of story. Now, if the legislature and the judiciary wish to more clearly define that authority I would endorse that approach, but to say, at this time, that he did something he did not have the authority to do, well...that's retrospective action and clearly only being done for political purposes. Meanwhile, the current resident of the Oval Office had documents that the VP was not authorized to posses strewn about his personal properties and no one gives a [BLEEP]. Because this isn't about documents, it's about candidacy.

No you wouldn't.  Intellectual dishonesty is bad enough on its own but it's very dangerous when you're also lying to yourself. 
As for Biden, worst case, two wrongs don't make a right, and he shouldn't be a candidate either.  Best case, it was a small number of documents that he never bragged about having, and that he never tried to parlay into any kind of personal advantage. Perhaps he wasn't aware that he had them. The man has surely forgotten many things.  The investigation is still open, and we are awaiting their report.

(06-11-2023, 02:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 01:45 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]No, because what anyone else believes in immaterial to his authority. He can do what he did, end of story. Now, if the legislature and the judiciary wish to more clearly define that authority I would endorse that approach, but to say, at this time, that he did something he did not have the authority to do, well...that's retrospective action and clearly only being done for political purposes. Meanwhile, the current resident of the Oval Office had documents that the VP was not authorized to posses strewn about his personal properties and no one gives a [BLEEP]. Because this isn't about documents, it's about candidacy.

No you wouldn't.  Intellectual dishonesty is bad enough on its own but it's very dangerous when you're also lying to yourself. 
As for Biden, worst case, two wrongs don't make a right, and he shouldn't be a candidate either.  Best case, it was a small number of documents that he never bragged about having or tried to parlay into any kind of personal advantage.  The investigation is still open, and we are awaiting their report.

You have no say in what I would or wouldn't do. Unlike you some folks don't twist with the prevailing winds and actually have principles. Meanwhile, you hate Trump so much that you're stuck defending a walking vegetable who plays for the team that hates your guts.

(06-11-2023, 02:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 02:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No you wouldn't.  Intellectual dishonesty is bad enough on its own but it's very dangerous when you're also lying to yourself. 
As for Biden, worst case, two wrongs don't make a right, and he shouldn't be a candidate either.  Best case, it was a small number of documents that he never bragged about having or tried to parlay into any kind of personal advantage.  The investigation is still open, and we are awaiting their report.

You have no say in what I would or wouldn't do. Unlike you some folks don't twist with the prevailing winds and actually have principles. Meanwhile, you hate Trump so much that you're stuck defending a walking vegetable who plays for the team that hates your guts.

Defending him? I literally offered him up to you.

(06-11-2023, 03:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 02:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You have no say in what I would or wouldn't do. Unlike you some folks don't twist with the prevailing winds and actually have principles. Meanwhile, you hate Trump so much that you're stuck defending a walking vegetable who plays for the team that hates your guts.

Defending him? I literally offered him up to you.

Mike you offered him up and then immediately started back peddling.  How can you not see that?

(06-11-2023, 02:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 02:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No you wouldn't.  Intellectual dishonesty is bad enough on its own but it's very dangerous when you're also lying to yourself. 
As for Biden, worst case, two wrongs don't make a right, and he shouldn't be a candidate either.  Best case, it was a small number of documents that he never bragged about having or tried to parlay into any kind of personal advantage.  The investigation is still open, and we are awaiting their report.

You have no say in what I would or wouldn't do. Unlike you some folks don't twist with the prevailing winds and actually have principles. Meanwhile, you hate Trump so much that you're stuck defending a walking vegetable who plays for the team that hates your guts.

You're getting caught up in that ole Okie Doak.. It's not worth the time or effort to have a serious conversation. Once a contrarian, always a contrarian. Tell him that the air is clean to breathe, he'll never take off his mask.

(06-11-2023, 03:38 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 03:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Defending him? I literally offered him up to you.

Mike you offered him up and then immediately started back peddling.  How can you not see that?

No, I laid out conditions that could be met as evidence emerges.

---

(06-11-2023, 03:57 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 02:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You have no say in what I would or wouldn't do. Unlike you some folks don't twist with the prevailing winds and actually have principles. Meanwhile, you hate Trump so much that you're stuck defending a walking vegetable who plays for the team that hates your guts.

You're getting caught up in that ole Okie Doak.. It's not worth the time or effort to have a serious conversation. Once a contrarian, always a contrarian. Tell him that the air is clean to breathe, he'll never take off his mask.

You're right. I'm often a contrarian.  People like me exist everywhere, but we only speak up in free and open societies.  One of the reasons free and open societies are run better and end up more prosperous than closed ones is we are often right about stuff.

(06-11-2023, 05:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 03:38 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Mike you offered him up and then immediately started back peddling.  How can you not see that?

No, I laid out conditions that could be met as evidence emerges.

---

(06-11-2023, 03:57 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]You're getting caught up in that ole Okie Doak.. It's not worth the time or effort to have a serious conversation. Once a contrarian, always a contrarian. Tell him that the air is clean to breathe, he'll never take off his mask.

You're right. I'm often a contrarian.  People like me exist everywhere, but we only speak up in free and open societies.  One of the reasons free and open societies are run better and end up more prosperous than closed ones is we are often right about stuff.

It will be a very bad day for you when you finally realize and accept the world we live in Mike.

(06-11-2023, 12:35 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 11:41 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Not for anything in his possession or that he is sharing with others.

Any docs he doesn't physically have do require a request to be made because of the procedures that are defined.

A request doesn't have to be made if he verbally shares information. If he shares it, it is deemed unclassified.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

The bolded is correct.  A sitting President can declassify information simply by sharing it verbally.  Trump was not a sitting President at this time.  Once a President is a private citizen, legally he must not disclose some of the things he knows, verbally or otherwise.  

The rest is wrong.

You really need to do your own research on this. Read the Clinton case and ruling.

The president has the sole power to decide anything about information, it is article 2. No one else can impede that power, all the classification rules are for other people. The president can change status whenever and without filling anything out. The forms are just for others so they can share the docs as they must follow the policies.

Clinton took records without filing anything but it was all deemed unclassified by his removing his records. It was personal records at that point and could be shared with anyone.

These are all copies of documents. Trump had them in his records and they were deemed unclassified when his term ended as he had them with him.


So here is the case:
He has classified documents- not true as anything he has is deemed unclassified
He has documents that contain classified markings- so what, you don't have to remove classified markings from documents
There is a recording about something being classified- this again doesn't matter
If Trump took this information with him, it is unclassified
If Trump doesn't have this information, then they will have to provide the information to prove it is classified
If they can't provide the information, then so what case dismissed
Trump can share any information that he wants with anyone at any point in time as long as it is not new information.
You may not like this but any information taken with him, i.e. his memory, is deemed unclassified. That doesn't mean you or I can share that information unless the form has been filled out and that would take the current president. He can't go and get documents now but any information he has he can share if he wishes. The rest of the government can still treat it as classified but those rules don't matter to a president.



None of the charges matter because everything is unclassified. Trump can share it with anyone, saying it is classified for anyone else is fine as the forms haven't been filled out to allow others to share it.




Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

The tape recording does matter. It's the fig leaf they are going to use to legitimize taking him off the ballot in certain states. MI PA WIS AZ etc. If he's convicted purplish states will move to pull his name so he can't get to 270, and they'll have a reasonable constitutional predicate to do it.

What are the odds the one in a million only way these laws are even applicable is the one scenario 45 lays out on tape? My gosh... where's Kelly Anne when u need her?

(06-11-2023, 01:45 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 09:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]If his defense is, "I declassified it and it's declassified," there has to be evidence he actually did and believed he did before his term ended.  Yet we have audio where he says, as a private citizen, "that document there is still classified." So he didn't declassify, and he never claimed he declassified until he realized he was in legal trouble over it.

No, because what anyone else believes in immaterial to his authority. He can do what he did, end of story. Now, if the legislature and the judiciary wish to more clearly define that authority I would endorse that approach, but to say, at this time, that he did something he did not have the authority to do, well...that's retrospective action and clearly only being done for political purposes. Meanwhile, the current resident of the Oval Office had documents that the VP was not authorized to posses strewn about his personal properties and no one gives a [BLEEP]. Because this isn't about documents, it's about candidacy.

Did you read the indictment?

(06-11-2023, 08:18 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 05:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]No, I laid out conditions that could be met as evidence emerges.

---

You're right. I'm often a contrarian.  People like me exist everywhere, but we only speak up in free and open societies.  One of the reasons free and open societies are run better and end up more prosperous than closed ones is we are often right about stuff.

It will be a very bad day for you when you finally realize and accept the world we live in Mike.

Being a contrarian doesn't mean I don't accept reality. Those are two different things.  I accept the world we live in just fine.

CBDC is being implemented. Kind of piggy backing off this topic from the Anheuser Busch thread from last week.

Anyway. Across the pond in an airport I believe a traveler shared a video of a food vendor style store having barriers that require you to scan in via two ways.

It's similar to what you would see at a music festival where you scan your wristband to get inside. Again, just another form of control casually being thrown up right before our eyes with no say in it.

Physical currency is going away. You either get onboard digitally all the way at some point or you won't be able to pick up basic needs to care for yourself or your family.

What if a solar flare pops off or we get attacked by an EMP or a natural disaster strikes an area and people need food, water, etc? Can't access it, can't back it up with physical currency anymore. Do we really think these people have a back up plan for this? Doubtful.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

(06-12-2023, 06:59 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 01:45 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]No, because what anyone else believes in immaterial to his authority. He can do what he did, end of story. Now, if the legislature and the judiciary wish to more clearly define that authority I would endorse that approach, but to say, at this time, that he did something he did not have the authority to do, well...that's retrospective action and clearly only being done for political purposes. Meanwhile, the current resident of the Oval Office had documents that the VP was not authorized to posses strewn about his personal properties and no one gives a [BLEEP]. Because this isn't about documents, it's about candidacy.

Did you read the indictment?

Yep.

---

(06-11-2023, 03:57 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-11-2023, 02:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You have no say in what I would or wouldn't do. Unlike you some folks don't twist with the prevailing winds and actually have principles. Meanwhile, you hate Trump so much that you're stuck defending a walking vegetable who plays for the team that hates your guts.

You're getting caught up in that ole Okie Doak.. It's not worth the time or effort to have a serious conversation. Once a contrarian, always a contrarian. Tell him that the air is clean to breathe, he'll never take off his mask.

I  know, that's why I don't engage deeply that often. It's funny how you can't tell the Dems from some of the supposed Pubs by their posting here.