Jump to content

Trump stole top secret nuclear documentation - the greatest security risk in US history


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, IronMaidenBills said:

The fact that there are active witnesses that need to be protected in this investigation is extremely telling. Trump is in major trouble. 

It would be rather simple to redact names and protect the identity of any witness and still release the affidavit to provide clarity around the justification and rationale behind the warrant.  Such a high profile case demands more transparency given all the rumors and theories being generated.  

 

I could start with the magistrate.  He steps down from his judicial position in order to take the job of defense attorney for a couple defendants in the Epstein case.  Once that is over he's reinstated to his position.  The Trump vs. Clinton civil case is assigned to him.  But back in June he suddenly recuses himself from the case for reasons I'm not aware of and resurfaces last week as the magistrate issuing the warrant for the search and seizure operation against Trump.  So an obscure and rather insignificant magistrate in Florida is involved in three high profile cases.   Perhaps just a coincidence?  Perhaps not.  What I find most interesting is how so few appear to be the least bit curious about all of these events that when combined weave an interesting picture where somebody could easily conclude Reinhart is some kind of political "cleaner" that's called into action when somebody makes a mess of things.       

Edited by All_Pro_Bills
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

One of these things, is not like the other......

 

 

 

Trump stole top secret nuclear documentation - the greatest security risk in US history

 

 

AG Merrick Garland Took Weeks to 'Deliberate' Before Signing Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Application

 

https://redstate.com/brutalbrittany/2022/08/16/no-urgency-ag-merrick-garland-took-weeks-to-deliberate-before-signing-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-application-n612885

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

One of these things, is not like the other......

 

 

 

Trump stole top secret nuclear documentation - the greatest security risk in US history

 

 

AG Merrick Garland Took Weeks to 'Deliberate' Before Signing Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Application

 

https://redstate.com/brutalbrittany/2022/08/16/no-urgency-ag-merrick-garland-took-weeks-to-deliberate-before-signing-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-application-n612885

 

.

 

And it took 18 months for them to take action.  

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DRsGhost said:

 

Plenty of evidence that you've ignored because you've been told to.

 

Want to square mail in voting is not secure vs. We just had the largest number of mail in votes in US history and golly gee it was also the most secure election on US history...

 

Or nah?

 

Simply saying " mail in ballots aren't secure" is not evidence though.  If there is evidence that fraud occurred, then show it, prosecute the people who did it, and move on.  If it is shown that people orchestrated it, then throw them in jail as well.

 

There is fraud in almost every level of everything.  Not a lot anyone can do to completely prevent fraud.  But just shouting "this is fraudulent" without then showing that it actually was isn't the correct response either.  

 

Would it have been fraudulent if Trump won as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Simply saying " mail in ballots aren't secure" is not evidence though.  If there is evidence that fraud occurred, then show it, prosecute the people who did it, and move on.  If it is shown that people orchestrated it, then throw them in jail as well.

 

 

Of course it isn't evidence.  I said the same five posts back and multiple times before that.  That's the whole point of why mass mail in balloting is not secure and dangerous, it's nearly impossible to prove when fraud occurs.  Once the ballot is separated from the envelope that contains the signature that ballot becomes indistinguishable from any other ballot.

 

Again, this is the reason why there was bipartisan support for limiting mail in absentee voting to only specific cases where people truly can't make it to their polling place.  It's too easy to cheat with mail in ballots and this was universally accepted prior to 2020.  What happened in 2020?

 

Mail in ballots and ballot applications were mailed out to out of date, corrupt voter rolls in many swing states.  Some states in addition to doing this also removed the signature verification procedure.  Gasoline on a fire.

 

So we have a system that everyone agreed was easily susceptible to fraud, then we increased the access to that system and then took it a step beyond and removed the lone remaining element that could catch fraudulent ballots by limiting or eliminating signature verification.

 

The more appropriate word for all of this isn't fraud.  It's rigged.

 

If you take that fact pattern and throw up your arms and just say well it can't be proven or worse you buy the ridiculous propaganda that it amounts to the most secure election in US History, then I've got that awesome ocean front property in Iowa to sell you.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

There is fraud in almost every level of everything.  Not a lot anyone can do to completely prevent fraud.  But just shouting "this is fraudulent" without then showing that it actually was isn't the correct response either.  

 

Again, the point is to limit the opportunity to commit fraud in the first place.  That most certainly did not happen in 2020.  It was a fraud-a-palooza free for all.

 

9 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Would it have been fraudulent if Trump won as well?

 

Yep.  Because I have principles.  Had Trump won in 2020 under the same set of circumstances something tells me that fraud would have been found quite readily.  Remember that the GOP fought all these unconstitutional election law changes tooth and nail in 2020.  They knew that universal mail in voting wasn't going to benefit them.

 

Obama on mail in voting...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Myth #2: As long as information has been declassified by competent authority or is otherwise unclassified, former government officials (to include a former president) are free to possess and/or disclose the information at will.

 

False.  Much of the unclassified information created by the federal government’s executive branch or otherwise in its custody is nonetheless sensitive and requires safeguarding or dissemination controls pursuant to and consistent with applicable law, regulations, and government-wide policies. Known as Controlled Unclassified Information, examples include information relating to federal taxpayers, witness protection, critical infrastructure protection and nuclear security. Both current and former government officials are subject to administrative or criminal sanctions should they improperly disclose or otherwise mishandle such unclassified information. Moreover, the unauthorized possession of certain controlled unclassified information such as Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information could be subject to prosecution under, among other statutes, 18 USC 793 of the Espionage Act, which does not mention classified information but rather applies to closely held national defense information the disclosure of which, if publicly known, could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

 

Quote

Myth #5: Former presidents control the disposition of their White House records.

 

False.  Starting with the administration of President Ford, and in reaction to the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration, in addition to the Federal Records Act, records of each presidential administration are controlled by the Presidential Records Act (PRA), depending upon which element of the White House is involved. In this Act, Congress made it clear that the American people, not the former president, owns the records and assigns responsibility to the incumbent president for the custody and management of his presidential records. As stated in the Act, records can be in any media, including textual, audiovisual, and electronic.

 

While many presidential records have been lost to history, starting with Franklin Roosevelt the tradition has been to make presidential records available to the public at presidential libraries. Congress legislated this policy, passing the Presidential Libraries Act in 1955 with the intent to preserve the documents and artifacts of our presidents, helping the American people to learn about our nation and our democracy. Beginning five years after the end of an administration, researchers and other members of the public can begin to access the records of a prior administration subject to the restrictions of the PRA and the Freedom of Information Act, including the current rules governing the safeguarding of classified information.

 

The declassification of presidential papers and records presents some unique issues and concerns which normally require a page-by-page or paragraph-by-paragraph review and referral to the originating agency. Because of their highest policy and classification level, presidential records often contain equities, information in which a classifying agency has an interest and need to review before declassification. In addition, the records often contain multiple agency equities requiring referral to more than one agency. Several equities can be present in a single presidential document. In addition, the statutory authorities governing presidential papers and records usually require a page-by-page (or paragraph-by-paragraph) review for other concerns such as statutory restrictions and privacy.

In sum, records of a president that were used during official duties belong to the American people – not to the president – and decisions about declassification and access to those materials are made by professionals within the federal government with the continuing responsibility to ensure that any disclosures do not place the security of our nation at increased risk.

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/82706/myths-misunderstandings-relating-to-mar-a-lago-documents-investigation/

Edited by Nineforty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 3:34 PM, DRsGhost said:

Joe Biden in no way shape or form got anywhere close to 81 million legal votes. Period.

 

Talk about brainwashed.

They’re the cult. Or could be a fatal case of Donkeypox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Westside said:

They’re the cult. Or could be a fatal case of Donkeypox.

Lol, this guy.  I know you are but what am i?????

 

I dont see anyone twisting themselves into pretzels defending Biden.  Most people say if he's guilty of anything he should be punished.

 

Meanwhile,  your tool buddies tried to overthrow the government but are soooooo stupid instead they wiped their own crap on the walls of the Capitol.  You and Darth Rhino believe the same dumb shiite they do.  

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Lol, this guy.  I know you are but what am i?????

 

I dont see anyone twisting themselves into pretzels defending Biden.  Most people say if he's guilty of anything he should be punished.

 

Meanwhile,  your tool buddies tried to overthrow the government but are soooooo stupid instead they wiped their own crap on the walls of the Capitol.  You and Darth Rhino believe the same dumb shiite they do.  

Can you honestly say that you believe that was a genuine effort to overthrow the government?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2022 at 8:03 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

It would be rather simple to redact names and protect the identity of any witness and still release the affidavit to provide clarity around the justification and rationale behind the warrant.  Such a high profile case demands more transparency given all the rumors and theories being generated.  

 

I could start with the magistrate.  He steps down from his judicial position in order to take the job of defense attorney for a couple defendants in the Epstein case.  Once that is over he's reinstated to his position.  The Trump vs. Clinton civil case is assigned to him.  But back in June he suddenly recuses himself from the case for reasons I'm not aware of and resurfaces last week as the magistrate issuing the warrant for the search and seizure operation against Trump.  So an obscure and rather insignificant magistrate in Florida is involved in three high profile cases.   Perhaps just a coincidence?  Perhaps not.  What I find most interesting is how so few appear to be the least bit curious about all of these events that when combined weave an interesting picture where somebody could easily conclude Reinhart is some kind of political "cleaner" that's called into action when somebody makes a mess of things.       

Hoax.  Unless you’ve read the instrument you cannot know that to be true. 

33 minutes ago, Brueggs said:

Can you honestly say that you believe that was a genuine effort to overthrow the government?  

Yes.  It occurred on January 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Yes.  It occurred on January 6.

I would say trespassing, and even a riot, but an actual coordinated effort to overthrow the most powerful government on the planet?  

The worlds next most powerful government doesn't yet have that capability, yet you think a group of unarmed protestors really set out to do it?  Take a little time and think about the reality of that for a minute...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Lol, this guy.  I know you are but what am i?????

 

I dont see anyone twisting themselves into pretzels defending Biden.  Most people say if he's guilty of anything he should be punished.

 

 

To be found guilty you first gave to have someone investigating your crimes. Hunter is on tape committing multiple crimes and yet nobody’s investigating him, or punishing him. And his father both benefited from it and is enabling it and yet the same group of nobodies are neither investigating him or punishing him. So, I’m sure your right…not! 

Edited by SoCal Deek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brueggs said:

I would say trespassing, and even a riot, but an actual coordinated effort to overthrow the most powerful government on the planet?  

The worlds next most powerful government doesn't yet have that capability, yet you think a group of unarmed protestors really set out to do it?  Take a little time and think about the reality of that for a minute...

I’ve thought plenty about the insurrection.   It is what it is.  A failed coup.  

23 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

To be found guilty you first gave to have someone investigating your crimes. Hunter is on tape committing multiple crimes and yet nobody’s investigating him, or punishing him. And his father both benefited from it and is enabling it and yet the same group of nobodies are neither investigating him or punishing him. So, I’m sure your right…not! 

You guys spend way too much time obsessing over Hunter Biden and not nearly enough time worrying about the Trumpian threat to democracy. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

One thing is for sure… all of this nonsense is making a lot of lawyers money!! Viva la corrupt elites and bureaucrats!!!! 

Hoax.  This isn’t nonsense.  And it could have been avoided had Trump just, you know, not refused to return sensitive government secrets to the rightful owner of such things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...