Who Put Classified Docs in Trump’s Desk

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Blasphemy

I'm just referring to the physical resemblance Winn Dixie.

Ronald Reagan is the greatest president of our lifetimes. He, Paul Volcker and others saved the country from the ravages of stagflation and recession. And Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, bringing Democracy and liberty to millions.

Ron DeSantis is governor of Florida.

Now RedPilled may be Ron DeSantis, slumming on a hooker board. RedPilled and Ron DeSantis both live in "a red city in a red county in a red state." But, in the words of Lloyd Bentsen (directed towards Dan Quayle), RedPilled is no Ronald Reagan. I don't think he would be foolish enough to post an avatar of Ron DeSantis though if he really were Ron DeSantis. But you never know.

[greenbook]

Short answer: me.

[greenbook]

Short answer: I did.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by greenbook

Short answer: I did.

You bastard! Look at the big stink you've caused.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Tiny

From "The Dangers of Trump-Prosecution Syndrome", by David Rohde, writing in the New Yorker:

...Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University, cautioned me that a successful prosecution of Trump would likely need to demonstrate that his reckless handling of classified information caused actual harm—such as adversaries learning about American intelligence methods. Trump’s lawyers would argue that he was merely guilty of carelessness. Trump himself, of course, would make the case that he was being politically persecuted. “I don’t think a jury would convict him without proof of harm. I’m not sure I would,” Gillers said. “He’s a sloppy guy, and he couldn’t let go of the Oval Office, so he dumped a lot of stuff into boxes—souvenirs of his Presidency.”

Gillers added that, fairly or unfairly, prosecuting a former President requires meeting a higher legal and political threshold. “It has to be one-hundred-per-cent irresistible as a matter of law,” he said. “There can be no fact, no event, no piece of evidence that could support any room for ambiguity.” A former Justice Department official I spoke with on Friday agreed. “The jury could say, ‘Who cares?’ ” he said. “I don’t know that it’s that easy or straightforward.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...ution-syndrome

I’m sure that’s not what the law requires. Trump should know though since he signed it and the Republican congress passed it. I do find it interesting that Anyone would be spinning themselves in circles now claiming that he should not be punished. Shit, we might as well just stop having secrets and put wverything on the internet. Or if y’all don’t wanna go that far at least stop making it illegal to obtain or possess state secrets as long as the person promising to not “cause any actual harm”.

All of this is silly.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I’m sure that’s not what the law requires. Trump should know though since he signed it and the Republican congress passed it. I do find it interesting that Anyone would be spinning themselves in circles now claiming that he should not be punished. Shit, we might as well just stop having secrets and put wverything on the internet. Or if y’all don’t wanna go that far at least stop making it illegal to obtain or possess state secrets as long as the person promising to not “cause any actual harm”.

All of this is silly.

I wasn't trying to make a point. I was interested in your thoughts about the practicalities of prosecuting Trump, and getting a conviction. Gillers, the legal ethics professor who's being quoted, is a Democrat,

https://www.opensecrets.org/search?q...rs&type=donors

And the New Yorker is considered to be somewhere between left-of-center and far left. Certainly it's no friend of Trump.

Giller's thoughts are pretty close to what I think intuitively. This isn't something I'd argue with you about though. It would be like arguing with Texas Contrarian or Lusty Lad on the economy - I'd get my ass kicked.

[HedonistForever]

So, the professor of Legal Ethics at New York University agrees with little ole me!!!!!!!!!!

[1blackman1]

Did he break the law when the 4 corners of the law are read?
If he did, then he should be indicted. If not, then he didn’t evidently break the law.

If he is indicted they should move forward with a prosecution and proves beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt. A jury will decide whether they’ve been successful in doing so.

The fact that he was a former president shouldn’t make any difference. We’re 2 years away from an election that he will be part of. Being afraid to prosecute him now would be silly. If the prosecutors believe he is guilty they should proceed.

The fact that he has nut bag followers that will riot if he’s prosecuted doesn’t and shouldn’t matter either. That’s how a nation of laws knows it’s doing the right thing. When we start letting people walk because people will be mad that a criminal is prosecuted we may as well stop having a justice system we claim is fair.

Trump can defend himself in court like everyone else that gets prosecuted.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I do find it interesting that Anyone would be spinning themselves in circles now claiming that Hillary Clinton should not be punished. Shit, we might as well just stop having secrets and put everything on the internet...

Yeah, I vaguely recall your saying the same thing 6 years ago, 1b1.

I remember how you were harshly critical of Jim Comey when he proclaimed "No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against Hillary Clinton. Shit, she put all those secrets out there on the internet using an unsecured private email server located in a bathroom/broom closet in a Denver mom-and-pop shop.

Funny how I can't seem to locate your quote from 6 years ago, 1b1. So I modified your quote from today instead.

Fair enough?

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Did he break the law when the 4 corners of the law are read?
If he did, then he should be indicted. If not, then he didn’t evidently break the law.

If he is indicted they should move forward with a prosecution and proves beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt. A jury will decide whether they’ve been successful in doing so.

The fact that he was a former president shouldn’t make any difference. We’re 2 years away from an election that he will be part of. Being afraid to prosecute him now would be silly. If the prosecutors believe he is guilty they should proceed.

The fact that he has nut bag followers that will riot if he’s prosecuted doesn’t and shouldn’t matter either. That’s how a nation of laws knows it’s doing the right thing. When we start letting people walk because people will be mad that a criminal is prosecuted we may as well stop having a justice system we claim is fair.

Trump can defend himself in court like everyone else that gets prosecuted.

You can't have a fair trial in Washington DC when less than 5% voted for Trump.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

When we start letting people walk because people will be mad that a criminal is prosecuted we may as well stop having a justice system we claim is fair.

So that means you're in favor of eliminating New York's no-bail law, right?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

You can't have a fair trial in Washington DC when less than 5% voted for Trump.

That would probably fall into the tough shit category.

He’ll attempt to change every venue. Regardless.

Then he’ll try to tamper with every jury.

That’s what he does. Like all mobsters.

[Salty Again]

... uh... any charges... where are they??

#### Salty

[WTF]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

So, the professor of Legal Ethics at New York University agrees with little ole me!!!!!!!!!!

I've had Supreme Court Justices agree with me....so hold on with the self back slapping.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

So that means you're in favor of eliminating New York's no-bail law, right?

That is not even close to what he meant.