Trump stole top secret nuclear docs - greatest security risk in US history - MORE TAPES!!!

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Again, John, really? The point I’m making is that if the dispute is over obstruction then it’s already been resolved when the government went and got them. 

Hoax.  The obstruction (apparently, I haven't read the statute[s]) is criminalized for a reason.  And, under your perverse view of the law, Trump had license and free reign to retain whatever secret he wanted, no matter its sensitivity, so long as the FBI eventually was able to overcome Trump's deceit and eventually track down the subject documents.  The contortions MAGA will make to justify this guy's actions never cease to amaze me. 

[SoCal Deek]

10 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  The obstruction (apparently, I haven't read the statute[s]) is criminalized for a reason.  And, under your perverse view of the law, Trump had license and free reign to retain whatever secret he wanted, no matter its sensitivity, so long as the FBI eventually was able to overcome Trump's deceit and eventually track down the subject documents.  The contortions MAGA will make to justify this guy's actions never cease to amaze me. 

Not even close. The government knew where the documents were. They were not being hidden. They even had discussions with Trump’s legal team about the means to better secure them. In other words, this was a dispute, being discussed between the two parties. The one party resolved the dispute (by force) of the possession of the documents and then AFTER they now have the documents, they then indict the other party for in essence not agreeing with them about the possession issue. Seems to me with possession now a moot point, the party that ought to bring a suit is the party that the documents were taken from. And I’m pretty sure you would do the exact same thing if the government raided your house, while you weren’t home, and took ‘government’ documents that you believe are yours to have…and while not completely analogous….documents such as your drivers license, birth certificates, home title, marriage license…all of which are also government documents. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Not even close. The government knew where the documents were. They were not being hidden. They even had discussions with Trump’s legal team about the means to better secure them. In other words, this was a dispute, being discussed between the two parties. The one party resolved the dispute (by force) of the possession of the documents and then AFTER they now have the documents, they then indict the other party for in essence not agreeing with them about the possession issue. Seems to me with possession now a moot point, the party that ought to bring a suit is the party that the documents were taken from. And I’m pretty sure you would do the exact same thing if the government raided your house, while you weren’t home, and took ‘government’ documents that you believe are yours to have…and while not completely analogous….documents such as your drivers license, birth certificates, home title, marriage license…all of which are also government documents. 

Or @SectionC3who never says a discouraging word about government abuse of power or over-reach would take it up the ass like a good obedient subject of the State and say "sir may I have another".

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Or @SectionC3who never says a discouraging word about government abuse of power or over-reach would take it up the ass like a good obedient subject of the State and say "sir may I have another".

Close, he would probably say “well since everything I have actually belongs to The State, I guess it was kind of them to let me keep my property for a while”. 😉

[SectionC3]

21 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Not even close. The government knew where the documents were. They were not being hidden. They even had discussions with Trump’s legal team about the means to better secure them. In other words, this was a dispute, being discussed between the two parties. The one party resolved the dispute (by force) of the possession of the documents and then AFTER they now have the documents, they then indict the other party for in essence not agreeing with them about the possession issue. Seems to me with possession now a moot point, the party that ought to bring a suit is the party that the documents were taken from. And I’m pretty sure you would do the exact same thing if the government raided your house, while you weren’t home, and took ‘government’ documents that you believe are yours to have…and while not completely analogous….documents such as your drivers license, birth certificates, home title, marriage license…all of which are also government documents. 

Hoax.  Trump

said they were returned.  They weren’t.  I believe in national security.  You don’t.  Sick and sad. 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Hoax.  Trump

said they were returned.  They weren’t.  I believe in national security.  You don’t.  Sick and sad. 

Don’t be a child. I’ve tried to give a reasoned perspective on this legal dispute. You on the other hand simply want to scream into the echo chamber. 
 

There is only one President and there are only a few living ex-Presidents. This dispute is therefore incredibly unique and should have been argued and resolved in the framework of a constitutional clarification (possibly at the Supreme Court level). 

[SectionC3]

33 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Don’t be a child. I’ve tried to give a reasoned perspective on this legal dispute. You on the other hand simply want to scream into the echo chamber. 
 

There is only one President and there are only a few living ex-Presidents. This dispute is therefore incredibly unique and should have been argued and resolved in the framework of a constitutional clarification (possibly at the Supreme Court level). 

What does that gibberish mean?  If you mean that Congress is authorized to make laws by the Constitution, that Trump allegedly breached one of those laws, and that he's got to face the music, then I agree.  And why would we change the rules to get this guy to the Supreme Court on what at this point is a factual issue?  You might know a thing or two about architecture, but your views on this area of the law are uninformed and frankly stupid. 

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

What does that gibberish mean?  If you mean that Congress is authorized to make laws by the Constitution, that Trump allegedly breached one of those laws, and that he's got to face the music, then I agree.  And why would we change the rules to get this guy to the Supreme Court on what at this point is a factual issue?  You might know a thing or two about architecture, but your views on this area of the law are uninformed and frankly stupid. 

Says the immature guy that keeps yelling hoax into the abyss. (And I know way more than a thing or two about architecture 😉). Yes, this is a very high level constitutional-type dispute. These issues do come up from time to time. I’m not sure what you think the Supreme Court’s purpose is, but EVERY case they hear is a dispute in which they’re asked to interpret, or require the amendment of, EXISTING laws. 

[SectionC3]

41 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Says the immature guy that keeps yelling hoax into the abyss. (And I know way more than a thing or two about architecture 😉). Yes, this is a very high level constitutional-type dispute. These issues do come up from time to time. I’m not sure what you think the Supreme Court’s purpose is, but EVERY case they hear is a dispute in which they’re asked to interpret, or require the amendment of, EXISTING laws. 

So, what's the "very high level constitutional-type" dispute?  The dispute is either constitutional, or it's not.  So let's hear what it is. Frankly, you sound like just another MAGA who talks about the constitution but who hasn't actually, you know, read it. 

[The Frankish Reich]

So if the government was demanding some documents that I had, claiming that they were government property, and I believed in good faith that they were actually my personal property ... I would probably hire a lawyer to fight that demand. And guess what? That's what he did. 

And those lawyers didn't say "we're going to court since Mr. Trump has a right to keep his personal property." No. They said, "o.k., here they are." And they verified - putting their own reputations on the line - that everything had been turned over. And then they found out Mr. Trump deceived them. And now we find out (and the chronology is key here) that the day AFTER they were subpoenaed, a Trump assistant (#4 in the superseding indictment) said he wanted surveillance footage of documents being moved around in Mar-a-Lago destroyed.

If you have a good faith claim that you are entitled to keep documents, you raise it at the start. You don't say "here they are" and then hold others back. You assert your rights and let a court decide. If you don't have a good faith belief that they belong to you, you do what Trump is accused of doing.

[SoCal Deek]

38 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

So, what's the "very high level constitutional-type" dispute?  The dispute is either constitutional, or it's not.  So let's hear what it is. Frankly, you sound like just another MAGA who talks about the constitution but who hasn't actually, you know, read it. 

I’ll try and explain …once again. The President has a very unique role in our system of government. He isn’t a Prime Minister. In other words he’s not just another member of Congress, like the Speaker. His powers and authority over the executive branch are unique. While I’m not a constitutional scholar I’m pretty sure that Classified Documents were not contemplated by the authors of the Constitution. Those documents didn’t exist then. So in essence this is a constitutional question as to whether there’s a debatable distinction. The Court would rule as to whether this is clearly spoken to in the Constitution and if not, they’d ask Congress to add clarity through legislation. 

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ll try and explain …once again. The President has a very unique role in our system of government. He isn’t a Prime Minister. In other words he’s not just another member of Congress, like the Speaker. His powers and authority over the executive branch are unique. While I’m not a constitutional scholar I’m pretty sure that Classified Documents were not contemplated by the authors of the Constitution. Those documents didn’t exist then. So in essence this is a constitutional question as to whether there’s a debatable distinction. The Court would rule as to whether this is clearly spoken to in the Constitution and if not, they’d ask Congress to add clarity through legislation. 

I’ll ask again: what is the constitutional question?  It’s nice to drop the phrase.  But you haven’t a clue what language or provision of the constitution is at issue.  Saying it’s a constitutional issue doesn’t make it so.  But that’s MAGA for you. 

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

I’ll ask again: what is the constitutional question?  It’s nice to drop the phrase.  But you haven’t a clue what language or provision of the constitution is at issue.  Saying it’s a constitutional issue doesn’t make it so.  But that’s MAGA for you. 

"Constitutional issues" refer to those that involve a dispute between the branches of government, or in this case the Executive Branch and the former head of the Executive Branch.  Keep in mind, the Supreme Court doesn't only get involved in Constitutional issues, but they do get involved when an interpretation of the Constitution is at the center of a case. In these cases, they are not supposed to make a new law, but instead they tell the other two branches to author a new law (Congress), or administrate the existing laws in a different way (Executive Branch). Since here we have the newly installed Executive Branch arresting the head of the previous Executive Branch, the Court would opine on whether the existing laws are clear enough....which by the recent exposure of Biden, Pence, both Clintons, and Obama we can all see for a fact they are not. 

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

"Constitutional issues" refer to those that involve a dispute between the branches of government, or in this case the Executive Branch and the former head of the Executive Branch.  Keep in mind, the Supreme Court doesn't only get involved in Constitutional issues, but they do get involved when an interpretation of the Constitution is at the center of a case. In these cases, they are not supposed to make a new law, but instead they tell the other two branches to author a new law (Congress), or administrate the existing laws in a different way (Executive Branch). Since here we have the newly installed Executive Branch arresting the head of the previous Executive Branch, the Court would opine on whether the existing laws are clear enough....which by the recent exposure of Biden, Pence, both Clintons, and Obama we can all see for a fact they are not. 

I don’t even know where to start on this nonsense.  Stick to architecture.  Or don’t.  Whatever.  Just don’t do law.  If you can identify the constitutional provision at issue in this bizarre hypothetical, then let me know and maybe it might be worth thinking about discussing further. 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I don’t even know where to start on this nonsense.  Stick to architecture.  Or don’t.  Whatever.  Just don’t do law.  If you can identify the constitutional provision at issue in this bizarre hypothetical, then let me know and maybe it might be worth thinking about discussing further. 

If you're an expert on law, then we really are in trouble. 

[ChiGoose]

18 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

, the Court would opine on whether the existing laws are clear enough....which by the recent exposure of Biden, Pence, both Clintons, and Obama we can all see for a fact they are not. 

The laws around this are very clear. They aren’t perfect, but they are clear. 

[SoCal Deek]

23 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

The laws around this are very clear. They aren’t perfect, but they are clear. 

Thanks Goose, that’s a much better response than Section who just wants to scream hoax. But I’ll put it to you if the laws are as clear as you make them out to be then why are all of these high level officials repeatedly breaking them? I put it to you, that much like a speed limit sign, the government has a responsibility to post that limit every so many miles so that drivers know what it is. Clearly our elected officials do not. So then it comes to selected enforcement of laws. If the government posts a speed limit sign but either never enforces it, or always plants a tree in front of it, then it’s what we call a ‘speed trap’. No? 

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

If you're an expert on law, then we really are in trouble. 

Nice try.   What’s the constitutional provision at issue in the scenario that you’ve articulated?  

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks Goose, that’s a much better response than Section who just wants to scream hoax. But I’ll put it to you if the laws are as clear as you make them out to be then why are all of these high level officials repeatedly breaking them? I put it to you, that much like a speed limit sign, the government has a responsibility to post that limit every so many miles so that drivers know what it is. Clearly our elected officials do not. So then it comes to selected enforcement of laws. If the government posts a speed limit sign but either never enforces it, or always plants a tree in front of it, then it’s what we call a ‘speed trap’. No? 

It’s selective enforcement, not selected enforcement. Now—maybe—we’re getting somewhere.  So, in your view, what part of the constitution is implicated here? 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks Goose, that’s a much better response than Section who just wants to scream hoax. But I’ll put it to you if the laws are as clear as you make them out to be then why are all of these high level officials repeatedly breaking them? I put it to you, that much like a speed limit sign, the government has a responsibility to post that limit every so many miles so that drivers know what it is. Clearly our elected officials do not. So then it comes to selected enforcement of laws. If the government posts a speed limit sign but either never enforces it, or always plants a tree in front of it, then it’s what we call a ‘speed trap’. No? 

Clarity of the law has nothing to do with where I think you’re fumbling around with going, FYI.  Clarity relates to vagueness.  You’re meandering toward contriving an equal protection issue.  But you still don’t know how to get there or what part of this sacred document that you talk about all the time but apparently haven’t read is relevant to that approach. 

[SoCal Deek]

30 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Nice try.   What’s the constitutional provision at issue in the scenario that you’ve articulated?  

It’s selective enforcement, not selected enforcement. Now—maybe—we’re getting somewhere.  So, in your view, what part of the constitution is implicated here? 

Dude I’m typing with my thumb here! While others complain about the privacy features, I’m more concerned about the abysmal auto correct features! 😉