Trump indicted in classified documents case in Florida

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

We have classified documents being where they shouldn't be

An allegation based on speculation.

We have a number things that show mens rea.

More speculation.

Trump's refusal to comply with a subpoena.

I'll grand you some of this. That being "fully" complying with a subpoena subject to some not yet available evidence.



You look foolish trying to tie this all together without a full picture of the facts.

You are a moron. If you ever held a security clearance you would know how stupid your comments are. No opinion involved. Clear are clear rules for classified documents and Trump violated them based on his own statements. I took an oath under penalty of DEATH not to reveal USG secrets. I am grossly insulted by ignorant comments from people like you and Trump. If you love your country you really need to educate yourself on how egregious Trumps actions were. Until then, anyone who has served will know you are just a partisan idiot.

Yet you aren't concerned with the guy who didn't have clearance nor the ability to declassify.

Yet you aren't concerned with the guy who kept said documents in a building that he shared with his crackhead son and the CCP.

Yet you aren't concerned with such documents being stored in a garage.

See, I know I'm a moron. yet your inability to have a rational, logical and coherent argument falls short of the very simple standard of proof to the fact.

Pardon me while I have a healthy laugh at your expense.

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: frogs453

I understand this may be difficult for you so I'll slow down.


First, you're gonna have to prove that he wasn't supposed to have them AND that the disposition of the documents are what they are alleged to be.

All of my contention with your "version of facts" is that you rely on speculation and allegations.


That's all. Pretty easy to see.


Now when you combine this with all of the other legal cases currently happening and the motions subject to a SCOTUS decision, it becomes even more suspicious to exactly why this case is being brought.


Your hate has eroded your critical thinking. And it's a damn shame.

Even ihe Trump were entitled to have them he criminally mishandled them. If you have held a clearance you know that and know how serious that crime is. So apparently you are speaking from ignorance.

More allegations?

...k


No need to reeeepeat what's already been alleged.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

We have classified documents being where they shouldn't be

Please show me where I let Biden off the hook.

We have a number things that show mens rea.

More speculation.

Trump's refusal to comply with a subpoena.

I'll grand you some of this. That being "fully" complying with a subpoena subject to some not yet available evidence.



You look foolish trying to tie this all together without a full picture of the facts.

You are a moron. If you ever held a security clearance you would know how stupid your comments are. No opinion involved. Clear are clear rules for classified documents and Trump violated them based on his own statements. I took an oath under penalty of DEATH not to reveal USG secrets. I am grossly insulted by ignorant comments from people like you and Trump. If you love your country you really need to educate yourself on how egregious Trumps actions were. Until then, anyone who has served will know you are just a partisan idiot.

Yet you aren't concerned with the guy who didn't have clearance nor the ability to declassify.

Yet you aren't concerned with the guy who kept said documents in a building that he shared with his crackhead son and the CCP.

Yet you aren't concerned with such documents being stored in a garage.

See, I know I'm a moron. yet your inability to have a rational, logical and coherent argument falls short of the very simple standard of proof to the fact.

Pardon me while I have a healthy laugh at your expense.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: frogs453

I understand this may be difficult for you so I'll slow down.


First, you're gonna have to prove that he wasn't supposed to have them AND that the disposition of the documents are what they are alleged to be.

All of my contention with your "version of facts" is that you rely on speculation and allegations.




That's all. Pretty easy to see.


Now when you combine this with all of the other legal cases currently happening and the motions subject to a SCOTUS decision, it becomes even more suspicious to exactly why this case is being brought.


Your hate has eroded your critical thinking. And it's a damn shame.

Even ihe Trump were entitled to have them he criminally mishandled them. If you have held a clearance you know that and know how serious that crime is. So apparently you are speaking from ignorance.

More allegations?

...k


No need to reeeepeat what's already been alleged.

Classified documents cannot be possessed outside a SCIF. No one can authorize that. To suggest otherwise is just stupid

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: frogs453

I understand this may be difficult for you so I'll slow down.


First, you're gonna have to prove that he wasn't supposed to have them AND that the disposition of the documents are what they are alleged to be.

All of my contention with your "version of facts" is that you rely on speculation and allegations.




That's all. Pretty easy to see.


Now when you combine this with all of the other legal cases currently happening and the motions subject to a SCOTUS decision, it becomes even more suspicious to exactly why this case is being brought.


Your hate has eroded your critical thinking. And it's a damn shame.

Even ihe Trump were entitled to have them he criminally mishandled them. If you have held a clearance you know that and know how serious that crime is. So apparently you are speaking from ignorance.

More allegations?

...k


No need to reeeepeat what's already been alleged.

Classified documents cannot be possessed outside a SCIF. No one can authorize that. To suggest otherwise is just stupid

Well, except the one person with the plenary authority to do as such.


Regardless, you should really let the current POTUS know of your revelations....

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: frogs453

I understand this may be difficult for you so I'll slow down.


First, you're gonna have to prove that he wasn't supposed to have them AND that the disposition of the documents are what they are alleged to be.

All of my contention with your "version of facts" is that you rely on speculation and allegations.




That's all. Pretty easy to see.


Now when you combine this with all of the other legal cases currently happening and the motions subject to a SCOTUS decision, it becomes even more suspicious to exactly why this case is being brought.


Your hate has eroded your critical thinking. And it's a damn shame.

Even ihe Trump were entitled to have them he criminally mishandled them. If you have held a clearance you know that and know how serious that crime is. So apparently you are speaking from ignorance.

More allegations?

...k


No need to reeeepeat what's already been alleged.

Classified documents cannot be possessed outside a SCIF. No one can authorize that. To suggest otherwise is just stupid

That's not true a president can have something declassified simply by saying so. He can also go a step further and include someone into a brifing etc even if they don't have the clearance to be there. So a president is not required to use a SCIF at all and often will include his staff members as well during briefings.

Oh and just to avoid you accusing me of not knowing I had a top secret clearance and have indeed used SCIFS however I was never part of a presidential briefing but have seen things designated for your eyes only which usually means you were authorized to see it and no SCIF is needed as you were given authority to possess the document.

Special Counsel requests trial start of July 8th. Trump requests August 12th.

A hearing is scheduled for today to discuss scheduling.

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: frogs453

I understand this may be difficult for you so I'll slow down.


First, you're gonna have to prove that he wasn't supposed to have them AND that the disposition of the documents are what they are alleged to be.

All of my contention with your "version of facts" is that you rely on speculation and allegations.




That's all. Pretty easy to see.


Now when you combine this with all of the other legal cases currently happening and the motions subject to a SCOTUS decision, it becomes even more suspicious to exactly why this case is being brought.


Your hate has eroded your critical thinking. And it's a damn shame.

Even ihe Trump were entitled to have them he criminally mishandled them. If you have held a clearance you know that and know how serious that crime is. So apparently you are speaking from ignorance.

More allegations?

...k


No need to reeeepeat what's already been alleged.

Classified documents cannot be possessed outside a SCIF. No one can authorize that. To suggest otherwise is just stupid

It's a shame you didn't tell Hur about that. But he probably knew, he said Joetatoe was too far gone to be prosecuted. But it does my heart good to see that at the very least, someone on the left grasps how badly Biden broke the law so many times, and for so long. Thanks for that.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: frogs453

I understand this may be difficult for you so I'll slow down.


First, you're gonna have to prove that he wasn't supposed to have them AND that the disposition of the documents are what they are alleged to be.

All of my contention with your "version of facts" is that you rely on speculation and allegations.




That's all. Pretty easy to see.


Now when you combine this with all of the other legal cases currently happening and the motions subject to a SCOTUS decision, it becomes even more suspicious to exactly why this case is being brought.


Your hate has eroded your critical thinking. And it's a damn shame.

Even ihe Trump were entitled to have them he criminally mishandled them. If you have held a clearance you know that and know how serious that crime is. So apparently you are speaking from ignorance.

More allegations?

...k


No need to reeeepeat what's already been alleged.

Classified documents cannot be possessed outside a SCIF. No one can authorize that. To suggest otherwise is just stupid

That's not true a president can have something declassified simply by saying so. He can also go a step further and include someone into a brifing etc even if they don't have the clearance to be there. So a president is not required to use a SCIF at all and often will include his staff members as well during briefings.

Oh and just to avoid you accusing me of not knowing I had a top secret clearance and have indeed used SCIFS however I was never part of a presidential briefing but have seen things designated for your eyes only which usually means you were authorized to see it and no SCIF is needed as you were given authority to possess the document.

what is the process for removing a document from the SCIF and taking it home? I only had secret clearance, so they didn't tell me more than I needed to know.

originally posted by: network dude
what is the process for removing a document from the SCIF and taking it home?

You fold it up and put it in your sock. Then walk out. Duh.

a reply to: network dude

With clearance you can remove documents from a scif however that means the classification changes to your eyes only. I'll give you an example usually training documents for Sat a top secret super duper missile system. If you are an instructor in the top secret super duper missile system you would be authorized to remove it and yes take it home as long as you properly secure it.

This is what has gotten people in trouble in the past leaving documents they brought home laying around where say house cleaning or lover can see it. Now everyone is making far to big a deal about scifs reality is there are thousands of them between the defence department and contractors. You can also have temporary scifs those are usually set up for a specific meeting and the requirements are set up by the director of national intelligence. It tells you what security they need even the size if windows allowed.

Now not all documents even require a scif for example any document marked confidential or secret no scif is required. If it's top secret or above scifs come in to play. I can have secret documents in my locked briefcase for example. Doesn't require to be secured in a safe when not in use. Top secret does require safe when not in use such as a home office. Which is a temporary scif as long as your authorized to work on whatever super secret project. This is how Biden ended up with documents at his home while he was vice president. He just skipped the step of returning them which he was required to do. They were probably marked secret or confidential and was hiding in his desk until they cleaned it and the stuff went into his garage


Oh and 1 more thing things have changed used to be paper documents now its usually a secured memory stick. So things like this are less likely to happen in the future. The days of paper are over even the documents Trump had were more than likely personal notes if they were on paper. This is why Hillary got in trouble about her server it was unsecured and she used it to view documents.

a reply to: network dude

For you or the president?

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: network dude

For you or the president?

I was kind of asked for all "others". I get "the president" has some ability to so things different.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
what is the process for removing a document from the SCIF and taking it home?

You fold it up and put it in your sock. Then walk out. Duh.

I think it's a requirement to put the saucy ones in your pants. But again, nobody told me, I'm just speculating.

a reply to: dragonridr

thanks for the in-depth reply. In my after service life, I worked on wiring the network in a secure building on what used to be Pope AFB, now Pope AAF, and saw what when into the separation of the network for the SCIF as opposed to the rest of the network. It was pretty intense as far as the overkill they used. But it did help me grasp the data side of the new "secret" a bit. I was unaware that you could remove documents from a SCIF under any circumstances.

originally posted by: liberalskeptic

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

We have classified documents being where they shouldn't be

An allegation based on speculation.

We have a number things that show mens rea.

More speculation.

Trump's refusal to comply with a subpoena.

I'll grand you some of this. That being "fully" complying with a subpoena subject to some not yet available evidence.



You look foolish trying to tie this all together without a full picture of the facts.

You are a moron. If you ever held a security clearance you would know how stupid your comments are. No opinion involved. Clear are clear rules for classified documents and Trump violated them based on his own statements. I took an oath under penalty of DEATH not to reveal USG secrets. I am grossly insulted by ignorant comments from people like you and Trump. If you love your country you really need to educate yourself on how egregious Trumps actions were. Until then, anyone who has served will know you are just a partisan idiot.

Wow!
They gave you that oath working the drive-thru at McDonald’s?
Made you guys feel important didn’t it?

a reply to: liberalskeptic

Hello person who is not very bright!

You are, simply, wrong.

Do you know why the king of england doesnt have a drivers lisc or passport?

Its the same reason why , for a president, nothing is classified....let me give you a hint...

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.

(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

3.1.2024

Biden's Attack Dog, (JACK SMITH) is attempting (once again) to place a successful roadblock in front of the TRUMP TRAIN.

Jack Smith Asks DC Judge Boasberg to Decide What Trump Classified Doc Evidence to Show Florida Judge

If you ever needed a good point to highlight the nature of political Lawfare, this is a great example.

Julie Kelly essentially notes that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is asking DC Judge James Boasberg to decide what evidence should be given to Florida Judge Aileen Cannon.

Boasberg, an ally of SSCI Chairman, Senator Mark Warner, has intercepted several cases that brought sunlight upon the corrupt DC system.

In each case Boasberg ruled in favor of maintaining the corruption, including his willfully blind support of the FBI searching NSA databases to conduct illegal surveillance of Americans, and including Boasberg’s personal appointment of Mary McCord to run defense on behalf of the corrupt DOJ main office.

Source: theconservativetreehouse.com... dge/

Jack Smith will be thrown into the abyss by Biden's Attorney General, if he fails to force candidate Trump out of the race for President. 😨

a reply to: WeMustCare

Mr. Trump has a Point here . The Scheduling of this Particular Trial Interferes with his ability to Campaign for Office which would be a Blatant Act of Election Interference .

" Trump Docs Judge: 'Lot of Work' Before Trial Begins "



" The Trump filing begins: "As the leading candidate in the 2024 election, President Trump strongly asserts that a fair trial cannot be conducted this year in a manner consistent with the Constitution, which affords President Trump a Sixth Amendment right to be present and to participate in these proceedings as well as, inter alia, a First Amendment right that he shares with the American people to engage in campaign speech." "



www.newsmax.com...

a reply to: JinMI

Ah..............

Mr. President ...TOP SECRET (For Your Eyes Only ) * Ring a Bell ?