After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile pervert.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile pervert.'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
offices '
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a process
to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately
in the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.'
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret
documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile
pervert.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
offices '
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have
cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a
process to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are
appropriately in the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.'
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.
Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same goes for
Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need to be treated
like any citizen would be. At least Trump had the authority to
declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
On 2023-01-09 16:42, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret
documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile
pervert.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
offices '
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have
cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a
process to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are
appropriately in the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.'
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.
Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same goes forTrump admitted as much, Sunshine.
Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need to be treated
like any citizen would be. At least Trump had the authority to
declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
When you say "It's OK because I declassified them": that shows intent.
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 6:57:26 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 8:17:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-09 16:42, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret
documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile
pervert.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
offices '
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have >> cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a
process to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are
appropriately in the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.'
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.
Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same goes for Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need to be treatedTrump admitted as much, Sunshine.
like any citizen would be. At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
When you say "It's OK because I declassified them": that shows intent.Indeed.
Trump’s cover up proves malicious intent. If it was a honest mistake, Trump
would have simply returned it as soon as NARA asked. That's why DOJ has
a consistent record of requiring a plus factor like obstruction before indicting
these cases. If Trump had done what Biden did, there would’vebeen no investigation.
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and fail to deliver it
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."
expressly violates the Espionage Act
18 U.S.C. § 793(d)
Trump clearly did that; there's no suggestion Biden did.
You don't know what Lyin' Biden did.
What we DO know is that these documents were "found" last Nov. 3rd, SIX DAYS before the election, but we weren't informed until YESTERDAY! This is a CLEAR coverup.
Where were the raids on Biden's residences?
And Shrillary DESTROYED classified data that was under subpoena -
ANOTHER clear violation of the law.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 8:17:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-09 16:42, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret
documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile
pervert.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
offices '
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have
cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a
process to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are
appropriately in the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.'
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.
Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same goes forTrump admitted as much, Sunshine.
Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need to be treated
like any citizen would be. At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
When you say "It's OK because I declassified them": that shows intent.Indeed.
Trump’s cover up proves malicious intent. If it was a honest mistake, Trump
would have simply returned it as soon as NARA asked. That's why DOJ has
a consistent record of requiring a plus factor like obstruction before indicting
these cases. If Trump had done what Biden did, there would’vebeen no investigation.
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and fail to deliver it
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."
expressly violates the Espionage Act
18 U.S.C. § 793(d)
Trump clearly did that; there's no suggestion Biden did.
-hh
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile pervert.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:two.
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile pervert.'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the offices '
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a process
to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately
in the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.'
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same goes for Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need to be treated like any citizen would be. At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:two.
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile pervert.'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the offices '
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a process
to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately
in the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.'
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same goes for Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need to be treated like any citizen would be. At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other
On 2023-01-09 16:42, Tommy wrote:> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:>> On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:>>> After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret>>> documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to thatsenile>>> pervert. >>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6>>>>> 'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the>> offices
Archives,? Sauber said.'>> >> Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.> > Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same goes for> Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need to be treated> like any citizen would be. At least'?Since that discovery, the President?s personal attorneys have >> cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a>> process to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are>> appropriately in the possession of the
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote: > > On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote: > > > After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret documents the samescrutiny MUST be applied to that senile pervert. > > > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6 > > 'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:two.
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile pervert.'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the offices '
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.'
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same goes for Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need to be treated like any citizen would be. At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:32:34 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 6:57:26 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 8:17:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-09 16:42, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the >> offices '
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret
documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile
pervert.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have >> cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a
process to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are >> appropriately in the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.' >>
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.
Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same goes for Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need to be treated like any citizen would be. At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.Trump admitted as much, Sunshine.
When you say "It's OK because I declassified them": that shows intent.Indeed.
Trump’s cover up proves malicious intent. If it was a honest mistake, Trump
would have simply returned it as soon as NARA asked. That's why DOJ has a consistent record of requiring a plus factor like obstruction before indicting
these cases. If Trump had done what Biden did, there would’vebeen no investigation.
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and fail to deliver it
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."
expressly violates the Espionage Act
18 U.S.C. § 793(d)
Trump clearly did that; there's no suggestion Biden did.
You don't know what Lyin' Biden did.Yeah, we do:
Biden did not intentionally take documents.
He did not lie about them.
He did not hide them from investigators.
He did not refuse to return them.
He is not in court trying to get them back.
He is not suspected of selling them.
What we DO know is that these documents were "found" last Nov. 3rd, SIX DAYSCoverup? Nope. It was an official business (CUI+) investigation, which isn’t subject
before the election, but we weren't informed until YESTERDAY! This is a CLEAR coverup.
to be automatically released in real time to the public. All you’re doing is reminding
everyone that you’ve never had a US Security clearance.
Where were the raids on Biden's residences?There’s no need for a subpoena when they voluntarily self-reported.
Your question is like asking why the police don’t automatically go to raid the house of every person who turns in a gun on an amnesty day.
And Shrillary DESTROYED classified data that was under subpoena -
ANOTHER clear violation of the law.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/Nothing on your cited URL says that she destroyed any subpoenaed information.
Indeed, it notes: “Comey added that the FBI ‘found no evidence that any of the
additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal
them in some way.’”, which is literally the opposite of your claim.
-hh
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 10:06:43 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 12:32:34 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 6:57:26 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 8:17:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-09 16:42, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having
secret documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to
that senile pervert.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
Yeah, we do:Indeed. Trump’s cover up proves malicious intent. If it was aTrump admitted as much, Sunshine.offices '
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal
attorneys have cooperated with the Archives and the
Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any
Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in
the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.'
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.
Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same
goes for Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need
to be treated like any citizen would be. At least Trump had
the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so
for those other two.
When you say "It's OK because I declassified them": that
shows intent.
honest mistake, Trump would have simply returned it as soon as
NARA asked. That's why DOJ has a consistent record of requiring
a plus factor like obstruction before indicting these cases. If
Trump had done what Biden did, there would’vebeen no
investigation.
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information
“and fail to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of
the United States entitled to receive it." expressly violates
the Espionage Act
18 U.S.C. § 793(d)
Trump clearly did that; there's no suggestion Biden did.
You don't know what Lyin' Biden did.
Biden did not intentionally take documents. He did not lie about
them. He did not hide them from investigators. He did not refuse to
return them. He is not in court trying to get them back. He is not
suspected of selling them.
No, Lyin' Asshole, you don't know ANY OF THOSE THINGS! I repeat, you
don't know ANY OF THOSE THINGS! If you have PROOF of what you just
claimed, then POST IT, but I don't think you have SHIT! This will ALL
come out with REAL investigations by the House.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 3:16:16 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:two.
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same goes for Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need to be treated like any citizen would be. At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile pervert.'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
offices '
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have
cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a process >>>> to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately >>>> in the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.'
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That's BULLSHIT! The President can declassify ANYTHING at ANYTIME!
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:
"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification
process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth...
...which you never could handle.
Tommy <[email protected]> Wrote in message:0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile pervert.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=
They found more classified documents today.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 3:16:16 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:other two.
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 4:16:04 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-09 16:02, Tommy wrote:
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile pervert.'were discovered as Biden's personal attorneys were clearing out the offices '
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
'“Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a process
to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately
in the possession of the Archives,” Sauber said.'
Trump took them deliberately. He's admitted as much.Sorry Fool, but you don't know HOW they got there. Same goes for Trump. In any case, Lyin' Biden and Shrillary need to be treated like any citizen would be. At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.That's BULLSHIT! The President can declassify ANYTHING at ANYTIME!
After all of the hooplas over Trump illegally having secret documents the same scrutiny MUST be applied to that senile pervert.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/doj-reviewing-potentially-classified-docs-at-biden-center/ar-AA1690EL?cvid=0185f4d3076542bebb367542564cbdc6
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 12:41:10 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
John B. wrote:
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That's BULLSHIT! The President can declassify ANYTHING at ANYTIME!
No, he can't.
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 5:06:51 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 12:41:10 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
John B. wrote:
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That's BULLSHIT! The President can declassify ANYTHING at ANYTIME!
No, he can't.Tommy’s just showing everyone… again… that he didn’t need a clearance to count fish. “Sad!”.
-hh
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP growth. I figure its the least
that I can do after your early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K paper gain
get flipped that same year, plus 2022's downturn have had you bummed out, so you
could us some cheering up to start 2023.
"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification
process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth...Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his
...which you never could handle.
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526 legally
remains the law of the land...and by definition within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Furthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC § 793(d):
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand to the officer or
employee of the United States entitled to receive it." expressly violates the Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so long
as they're still sensitive and information for national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18 USC § 793(d).
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right to
CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a private citizen either, until it has been documented as being
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP growth. I figure its the least
that I can do after your early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K paper gain
get flipped that same year, plus 2022's downturn have had you bummed out, so you
could us some cheering up to start 2023.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification
process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth...
...which you never could handle.
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526 legally
remains the law of the land...and by definition within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for future presidents who can change it at will.
Furthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC § 793(d):
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand to the officer or
employee of the United States entitled to receive it." expressly violates the Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so long
as they're still sensitive and information for national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18 USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a SHIT LOAD OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a SINGLE classified document in his possession.
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right to
CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a private citizen either, until it has been documented as being
How the fucking hell do you know that? Numerous government officials have left the government with their clearances INTACT, and this DEFINITELY applies to former presidents.
On 2023-01-11 17:35, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP growth. I figure its the least
that I can do after your early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K paper gain
get flipped that same year, plus 2022's downturn have had you bummed out, so you
could us some cheering up to start 2023.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification
process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth...
...which you never could handle.
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526 legally
remains the law of the land...and by definition within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for future presidents who can change it at will.It's binding until a future president changes it...
...which Trump didn't...
...because there'd be an EO that did that.
Furthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC § 793(d):
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand to the officer or
employee of the United States entitled to receive it." expressly violates the Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so long
as they're still sensitive and information for national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18 USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a SHIT LOAD OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a SINGLE classified document in his possession.Why? He WAS VP, Sunshine.
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right to
CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a private citizen either, until it has been documented as being
How the fucking hell do you know that? Numerous government officials have left the government with their clearances INTACT, and this DEFINITELY applies to former presidents.He knows so much more about clearances than you do, Sunshine...
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-11 17:35, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:It's binding until a future president changes it...
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP growth.
I figure its the least that I can do after your early 2018 “I
am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K paper gain get flipped
that same year, plus 2022's downturn have had you bummed out,
so you could us some cheering up to start 2023.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification process"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy
wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to declassify any
documents he took - not so for those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally
declassify documents. There is a declassification process
that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth... ...which you never could handle.
rules, which includes what the POTUS says his legal
responsibilities are. Trump could have changed that, but it
requires writing & signing a formal EO to cancel the existing
EO and its rules are before he can have the authority to
declassify by a different set of rules (e.g., zero
documentation). Since there is no record of the cancelation of
the current EO, 13526 legally remains the law of the land...and
by definition within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally
bound to it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications done in
accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for future
presidents who can change it at will.
...which Trump didn't...
...because there'd be an EO that did that.
Why? He WAS VP, Sunshine.
Furthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense against the
provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC § 793(d): To
"willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and
fail to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it." expressly violates the
Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require documents
to be classified: unclassified documents, so long as they're
still sensitive and information for national defense, can
qualify too as violations of 18 USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a SHIT LOAD
OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a SINGLE classified document
in his possession.
He knows so much more about clearances than you do, Sunshine...
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his clearance was
suspended, plus he does not have a right to CUI ("Controlled
Unclassified Information") as a private citizen either, until
it has been documented as being
How the fucking hell do you know that? Numerous government
officials have left the government with their clearances INTACT,
and this DEFINITELY applies to former presidents.
LOL! Are you SERIOUS, Fool??? Really, ARE YOU SERIOUS???? I have held
a secret clearances in the past by way of my employment at a National Laboratory, and KNOW EXACTLY what the responsibilities are, UNLIKE
YOU, a fucking FOREIGNER!!!!!!
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules
regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-11 17:35, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP growth. I figure its the least
that I can do after your early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K paper gain
get flipped that same year, plus 2022's downturn have had you bummed out, so you
could us some cheering up to start 2023.
"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification
process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth...
...which you never could handle.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526 legally
remains the law of the land...and by definition within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for future presidents who can change it at will.
It's binding until a future president changes it...
...which Trump didn't...
...because there'd be an EO that did that.
Furthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC § 793(d):
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand to the officer or
employee of the United States entitled to receive it." expressly violates the Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so long
as they're still sensitive and information for national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18 USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a SHIT LOAD OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a
SINGLE classified document in his possession.
Why? He WAS VP, Sunshine.
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right to
CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a private citizen either, until it has been documented as being
How the fucking hell do you know that?
Numerous government officials have left the government with their clearances INTACT, and this
DEFINITELY applies to former presidents.
He knows so much more about clearances than you do, Sunshine...
LOL! Are you SERIOUS, Fool??? Really, ARE YOU SERIOUS???? I have held a secret clearances in the past
by way of my employment at a National Laboratory, ...
...and KNOW EXACTLY what the responsibilities are, ...
... UNLIKE YOU, a fucking FOREIGNER!!!!!!
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules
regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
And yet somehow you can twist your brain and claim Trump wasn't...
Interesting.
On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 23:29:45 -0800, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules
regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
And yet somehow you can twist your brain and claim Trump wasn't...
Interesting.
I guess you speak from experience since you twist your brain and
refuse to accept any and all evidence that Hunter's laptop is actually
his and the data hasn't been copied or tampered with.
On 2023-01-12 09:33, One Putt wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 23:29:45 -0800, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules
regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
And yet somehow you can twist your brain and claim Trump wasn't...
Interesting.
I guess you speak from experience since you twist your brain and
refuse to accept any and all evidence that Hunter's laptop is actually
his and the data hasn't been copied or tampered with.
Whatever, Irving.
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 11:03:14 -0800, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-01-12 09:33, One Putt wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 23:29:45 -0800, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules
regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
And yet somehow you can twist your brain and claim Trump wasn't...
Interesting.
I guess you speak from experience since you twist your brain and
refuse to accept any and all evidence that Hunter's laptop is actually
his and the data hasn't been copied or tampered with.
Whatever, Irving.
You keep calling me Irving for some reason. I notice you consistently
do that when you can't refute me.
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 1:47:53 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-11 17:35, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP growth. I figure its the least
that I can do after your early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K paper gain
get flipped that same year, plus 2022's downturn have had you bummed out, so you
could us some cheering up to start 2023.
"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification
process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth...
...which you never could handle.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526 legally
remains the law of the land...and by definition within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for future presidents who can change it at will.
Precisely. Institutions run on paper, and there's no such paper.It's binding until a future president changes it...
...which Trump didn't...
...because there'd be an EO that did that.
Furthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC § 793(d):
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand to the officer or
employee of the United States entitled to receive it." expressly violates the Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so long
as they're still sensitive and information for national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18 USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a SHIT LOAD OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a
SINGLE classified document in his possession.
He also was a US Senator, and invariably had need-to-know committee responsibilities there too.Why? He WAS VP, Sunshine.
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right to
CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a private citizen either, until it has been documented as being
How the fucking hell do you know that?
Except that "intact" does not mean that it is active.Numerous government officials have left the government with their clearances INTACT, and this
DEFINITELY applies to former presidents.
When a clearance holder leaves a job, their clearance is suspended as of their last day of employment, but is left
intact for a period of [redacted] years. During this time, the clearance(s) may be reactivated without requiring a
reinvestigation, but after that, a new reinvestigation is required. The process facilitates gaps in employment.
He knows so much more about clearances than you do, Sunshine...
LOL! Are you SERIOUS, Fool??? Really, ARE YOU SERIOUS???? I have held a secret clearances in the past
by way of my employment at a National Laboratory, ...
Except that "had one" doesn't mean actually ever using it...
... nor being familiar in depth (practiced) with the relevant policies & regulations.
...and KNOW EXACTLY what the responsibilities are, ...
Nah. Change that "KNOW" to the past tense: "USED TO KNOW".
... UNLIKE YOU, a fucking FOREIGNER!!!!!!
Attributionally, it wasn't Alan who's making statements about the US Security Classification system.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.If you really did have a clearance .. and remembered the regulations .. then you'd know that to be untrue
"PERIOD".
-hh
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 4:15:04 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 1:47:53 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-11 17:35, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP growth. I figure its the least
that I can do after your early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K paper gain
get flipped that same year, plus 2022's downturn have had you bummed out, so you
could us some cheering up to start 2023.
"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification
process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth...
...which you never could handle.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526 legally
remains the law of the land...and by definition within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for future presidents who can change it at will.
It's binding until a future president changes it...
...which Trump didn't...
...because there'd be an EO that did that.
Precisely. Institutions run on paper, and there's no such paper.
Furthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC § 793(d):
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand to the officer or
employee of the United States entitled to receive it." expressly violates the Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so long
as they're still sensitive and information for national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18 USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a SHIT LOAD OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a
SINGLE classified document in his possession.
He also was a US Senator, and invariably had need-to-know committee responsibilities there too.Why? He WAS VP, Sunshine.
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right to
CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a private citizen either, until it has been documented as being
How the fucking hell do you know that?
Numerous government officials have left the government with their clearances INTACT, and this
DEFINITELY applies to former presidents.
Except that "intact" does not mean that it is active.
When a clearance holder leaves a job, their clearance is suspended as of their last day of employment, but is left
intact for a period of [redacted] years. During this time, the clearance(s) may be reactivated without requiring a
reinvestigation, but after that, a new reinvestigation is required. The process facilitates gaps in employment.
You ARE a BORE - ALL ex-presidents and VPs have ACTIVE security clearances, which is what
"intact" means, you IDIOT.
He knows so much more about clearances than you do, Sunshine...
LOL! Are you SERIOUS, Fool??? Really, ARE YOU SERIOUS???? I have held a secret clearances in the past
by way of my employment at a National Laboratory, ...
Except that "had one" doesn't mean actually ever using it...
... nor being familiar in depth (practiced) with the relevant policies & regulations.
FUCK YOU - YES, I used it. You have NO IDEA what I secret projects I worked on, and I am NOT going to tell you!
...and KNOW EXACTLY what the responsibilities are, ...
Nah. Change that "KNOW" to the past tense: "USED TO KNOW".
WRONG AGAIN - the requirements are EXACTLY the same, but YOU have no idea.
... UNLIKE YOU, a fucking FOREIGNER!!!!!!
Attributionally, it wasn't Alan who's making statements about the US Security Classification system.
Oh, YES he was.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
If you really did have a clearance .. and remembered the regulations .. then you'd know that to be untrue
Wrong again, Lyin' Asshole. The rules are ABUNDANTLY clear, but YOU are obviously ignorant of them. For
starters, taking classified documents to an unsecured location is FORBIDDEN.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the evidence, a criminal.
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:36:15 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 4:15:04 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 1:47:53 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-11 17:35, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote: >>> On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:
Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP growth. I figure its the least
that I can do after your early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K paper gain
get flipped that same year, plus 2022's downturn have had you bummed out, so you
could us some cheering up to start 2023.
"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote: >>> ...
... At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification
process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth...
...which you never could handle.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526 legally
remains the law of the land...and by definition within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for future presidents who can change it at will.
It's binding until a future president changes it...
...which Trump didn't...
...because there'd be an EO that did that.
Silence from Tommy.Precisely. Institutions run on paper, and there's no such paper.
Furthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC § 793(d):
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand to the officer or
employee of the United States entitled to receive it." expressly violates the Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so long
as they're still sensitive and information for national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18 USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a SHIT LOAD OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a
SINGLE classified document in his possession.
He also was a US Senator, and invariably had need-to-know committee responsibilities there too.Why? He WAS VP, Sunshine.
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right to
CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a private citizen either, until it has been documented as being
How the fucking hell do you know that?
Numerous government officials have left the government with their clearances INTACT, and this
DEFINITELY applies to former presidents.
Silence from Tommy.Except that "intact" does not mean that it is active.
When a clearance holder leaves a job, their clearance is suspended as of their last day of employment, but is left
intact for a period of [redacted] years. During this time, the clearance(s) may be reactivated without requiring a
reinvestigation, but after that, a new reinvestigation is required. The process facilitates gaps in employment.
You ARE a BORE - ALL ex-presidents and VPs have ACTIVE security clearances, which is whatNo, "intact" is not the same as "active".
"intact" means, you IDIOT.
If you ever actually had a clearance, you'd know this.
Especially if you were ever responsible for managing others with clearances.
Now while its generally true that former POTUS's traditionally have had their clearances remained activated,
it is always the next Administration who controls & decides that. The Biden Administration didn't authorize
Trump's clearance to remain active, so it isn't. FYI: Trump has zero legal authority to appeal this decision.
He knows so much more about clearances than you do, Sunshine...
LOL! Are you SERIOUS, Fool??? Really, ARE YOU SERIOUS???? I have held a secret clearances in the past
by way of my employment at a National Laboratory, ...
Except that "had one" doesn't mean actually ever using it...
... nor being familiar in depth (practiced) with the relevant policies & regulations.
FUCK YOU - YES, I used it. You have NO IDEA what I secret projects I worked on, and I am NOT going to tell you!I'm not asking for what classified fish counters you worked on, Tommy.
What I've said is that your comments are highly inconsistent with having contemporary knowledge & experience in this area.
...and KNOW EXACTLY what the responsibilities are, ...
Nah. Change that "KNOW" to the past tense: "USED TO KNOW".
WRONG AGAIN - the requirements are EXACTLY the same, but YOU have no idea.Requirements & procedures change, so even if you're not lying, you're still more than a decade out of date.
... UNLIKE YOU, a fucking FOREIGNER!!!!!!
Attributionally, it wasn't Alan who's making statements about the US Security Classification system.
Oh, YES he was.Nothing that's not Open Literature and available to everyone.
Case in point:
"And even if he does declassify some things, there is a procedure to follow and it wasn't followed."
That's simply noting the existence of EO 13526, which has its own Open Lit Wiki page at URL:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526>
Plus Alan is former Canadian military, and CA has multiple agreements with the US for the sharing of
classified information, which means that those who have access have been formally trained on this too.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
If you really did have a clearance .. and remembered the regulations .. then you'd know that to be untrue
Wrong again, Lyin' Asshole. The rules are ABUNDANTLY clear, but YOU are obviously ignorant of them. ForLOL! Wrong example cupcake.
starters, taking classified documents to an unsecured location is FORBIDDEN.
Because there's specific procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case in point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions, then how *couriers* could ever do their job?
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the evidence, a criminal.Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training <-- on procedures for spillage and breaches. The reality is
that procedural controls are inevitable and humans make mistakes, so if everyone who's ever had anyviolation,
spillage, or breach is automatically a criminal, then you are confessing that you're a criminal too.
-hh
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 4:06:11 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:36:15 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 4:15:04 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:Silence from Tommy.
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 1:47:53 AM UTC-5, Tommy
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-8, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-01-11 17:35, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP
growth. I figure its the least that I can do after your
early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K
paper gain get flipped that same year, plus 2022's
downturn have had you bummed out, so you could us some
cheering up to start 2023.
"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5,
Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to
declassify any documents he took - not so for
those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally
declassify documents. There is a
declassification process that has to be followed.
He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth... ...which you never could handle.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification
process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed
that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can
have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no
record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526
legally remains the law of the land...and by definition
within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to
it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications
done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for
future presidents who can change it at will.
It's binding until a future president changes it...
...which Trump didn't... ...because there'd be an EO that
did that.
Precisely. Institutions run on paper, and there's no such
paper.
Silence from Tommy.He also was a US Senator, and invariably had need-to-knowFurthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense
against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC
§ 793(d): To "willfully retain" sensitive national
defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand
to the officer or employee of the United States
entitled to receive it." expressly violates the
Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require
documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so
long as they're still sensitive and information for
national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18
USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a
SHIT LOAD OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a SINGLE
classified document in his possession.
Why? He WAS VP, Sunshine.
committee responsibilities there too.
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his
clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right
to CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a
private citizen either, until it has been documented as
being
How the fucking hell do you know that?
Numerous government officials have left the government
with their clearances INTACT, and this DEFINITELY applies
to former presidents.
Except that "intact" does not mean that it is active.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
No, "intact" is not the same as "active".When a clearance holder leaves a job, their clearance is
suspended as of their last day of employment, but is left
intact for a period of [redacted] years. During this time, the
clearance(s) may be reactivated without requiring a
reinvestigation, but after that, a new reinvestigation is
required. The process facilitates gaps in employment.
You ARE a BORE - ALL ex-presidents and VPs have ACTIVE security
clearances, which is what "intact" means, you IDIOT.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
If you ever actually had a clearance, you'd know this.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Especially if you were ever responsible for managing others with
clearances.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Now while its generally true that former POTUS's traditionally have
had their clearances remained activated, it is always the next
Administration who controls & decides that. The Biden
Administration didn't authorize Trump's clearance to remain active,
so it isn't. FYI: Trump has zero legal authority to appeal this
decision.
PROVE THAT!!!
I'm not asking for what classified fish counters you worked on,He knows so much more about clearances than you do,
Sunshine...
LOL! Are you SERIOUS, Fool??? Really, ARE YOU SERIOUS???? I
have held a secret clearances in the past by way of my
employment at a National Laboratory, ...
Except that "had one" doesn't mean actually ever using it...
... nor being familiar in depth (practiced) with the relevant
policies & regulations.
FUCK YOU - YES, I used it. You have NO IDEA what I secret
projects I worked on, and I am NOT going to tell you!
Tommy.
I NEVER worked on "fish counters." The projects that WERE classified
related to National Security. The last one was completed a couple of
years before I retired.
What I've said is that your comments are highly inconsistent with
having contemporary knowledge & experience in this area.
Have YOU ever had a security clearance?
Requirements & procedures change, so even if you're not lying,...and KNOW EXACTLY what the responsibilities are, ...
Nah. Change that "KNOW" to the past tense: "USED TO KNOW".
WRONG AGAIN - the requirements are EXACTLY the same, but YOU have
no idea.
you're still more than a decade out of date.
Nothing that's not Open Literature and available to everyone. Case... UNLIKE YOU, a fucking FOREIGNER!!!!!!
Attributionally, it wasn't Alan who's making statements about
the US Security Classification system.
Oh, YES he was.
in point: "And even if he does declassify some things, there is a
procedure to follow and it wasn't followed." That's simply noting
the existence of EO 13526, which has its own Open Lit Wiki page at
URL: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526>
Plus Alan is former Canadian military, and CA has multiple
agreements with the US for the sharing of classified information,
which means that those who have access have been formally trained
on this too.
So the fuck what! Being in the military (if that is indeed true,
which I have my doubts) DOES NOT mean you have a security clearance.
Most active military DON'T have clearances.
In any event, the whole issue about Trump's clearance is MOOT because
senile pervert Lyin' Biden REVOKED IT some time ago.
LOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific proceduresSenile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules
regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
If you really did have a clearance .. and remembered the
regulations .. then you'd know that to be untrue
Wrong again, Lyin' Asshole. The rules are ABUNDANTLY clear, but
YOU are obviously ignorant of them. For starters, taking
classified documents to an unsecured location is FORBIDDEN.
that prescribe just how that is done. Case in point, f there
weren't such 'removal' provisions, then how *couriers* could ever
do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from one secure
facility to another and DOES NOT have the authority to read the
document. The document has to be in their possession for the entire
time, not stored in an unsecure residence for YEARS. This is all
covered at: https://www.gsa.gov/directives-library/procedures-for-the-us-general-services-administration-classified-couriers-10251-adm
Excerpt:
(3) The materials being transported shall remain in the physical
possession of the classified courier at all times. Classified
material will not be left in hotel rooms, hotel safes, private
residences, public lockers, unattended vehicles, etc.
All of this means that even if senile pervert Lyin' Biden's STAFF
were responsible for transporting these documents to the pervert's
home these procedures MUST be followed and the pervert would KNOW
about it.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the evidence, aNope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training <-- on
criminal.
procedures for spillage and breaches. The reality is that
procedural controls are inevitable and humans make mistakes, so if
everyone who's ever had anyviolation, spillage, or breach is
automatically a criminal, then you are confessing that you're a
criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized
removal and retention of classified documents or material (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The penalty for
violating just this law is "shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."
On 2023-01-14 11:03, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 4:06:11 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:36:15 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 4:15:04 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 1:47:53 AM UTC-5, Tommy
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-8, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-01-11 17:35, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP
growth. I figure its the least that I can do after your
early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K
paper gain get flipped that same year, plus 2022's
downturn have had you bummed out, so you could us some
cheering up to start 2023.
"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5,
Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to
declassify any documents he took - not so for
those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally
declassify documents. There is a
declassification process that has to be followed.
He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth... ...which you never could handle.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification
process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed
that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can
have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no
record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526
legally remains the law of the land...and by definition
within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to
it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications
done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for
future presidents who can change it at will.
It's binding until a future president changes it...
...which Trump didn't... ...because there'd be an EO that
did that.
Precisely. Institutions run on paper, and there's no such
paper.
Silence from Tommy.
He also was a US Senator, and invariably had need-to-knowFurthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense
against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC
§ 793(d): To "willfully retain" sensitive national
defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand
to the officer or employee of the United States
entitled to receive it." expressly violates the
Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require
documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so
long as they're still sensitive and information for
national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18
USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a
SHIT LOAD OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a SINGLE
classified document in his possession.
Why? He WAS VP, Sunshine.
committee responsibilities there too.
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his
clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right
to CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a
private citizen either, until it has been documented as
being
How the fucking hell do you know that?
Numerous government officials have left the government
with their clearances INTACT, and this DEFINITELY applies
to former presidents.
Except that "intact" does not mean that it is active.
Silence from Tommy.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
When a clearance holder leaves a job, their clearance is
suspended as of their last day of employment, but is left
intact for a period of [redacted] years. During this time, the
clearance(s) may be reactivated without requiring a
reinvestigation, but after that, a new reinvestigation is
required. The process facilitates gaps in employment.
You ARE a BORE - ALL ex-presidents and VPs have ACTIVE security
clearances, which is what "intact" means, you IDIOT.
No, "intact" is not the same as "active".
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Wrong.
'A security clearance becomes “inactive” once a person leaves the military or if their job responsibilities change and their need for clearance ends. Even after it has expired, a security clearance can be re-activated up to 24 months after its lapse date without having to go through the application process again.'
So your clearance can be "intact" (i.e. "able to be reactivated") for up
to 2 years after you've left the role for which you needed the clearance.
If you ever actually had a clearance, you'd know this.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Especially if you were ever responsible for managing others with
clearances.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Now while its generally true that former POTUS's traditionally have
had their clearances remained activated, it is always the next
Administration who controls & decides that. The Biden
Administration didn't authorize Trump's clearance to remain active,
so it isn't. FYI: Trump has zero legal authority to appeal this
decision.
PROVE THAT!!!
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/politics/biden-trump-intelligence-briefings.html>
He knows so much more about clearances than you do,
Sunshine...
LOL! Are you SERIOUS, Fool??? Really, ARE YOU SERIOUS???? I
have held a secret clearances in the past by way of my
employment at a National Laboratory, ...
Except that "had one" doesn't mean actually ever using it...
... nor being familiar in depth (practiced) with the relevant
policies & regulations.
FUCK YOU - YES, I used it. You have NO IDEA what I secret
projects I worked on, and I am NOT going to tell you!
I'm not asking for what classified fish counters you worked on,
Tommy.
I NEVER worked on "fish counters." The projects that WERE classified related to National Security. The last one was completed a couple of
years before I retired.
What I've said is that your comments are highly inconsistent with
having contemporary knowledge & experience in this area.
Have YOU ever had a security clearance?
I know a little bit more about HH than you do, Sunshine.
I'm sure he has.
...and KNOW EXACTLY what the responsibilities are, ...
Nah. Change that "KNOW" to the past tense: "USED TO KNOW".
WRONG AGAIN - the requirements are EXACTLY the same, but YOU have
no idea.
Requirements & procedures change, so even if you're not lying,
you're still more than a decade out of date.
Nothing that's not Open Literature and available to everyone. Case... UNLIKE YOU, a fucking FOREIGNER!!!!!!
Attributionally, it wasn't Alan who's making statements about
the US Security Classification system.
Oh, YES he was.
in point: "And even if he does declassify some things, there is a
procedure to follow and it wasn't followed." That's simply noting
the existence of EO 13526, which has its own Open Lit Wiki page at
URL: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526>
Plus Alan is former Canadian military, and CA has multiple
agreements with the US for the sharing of classified information,
which means that those who have access have been formally trained
on this too.
So the fuck what! Being in the military (if that is indeed true,
which I have my doubts) DOES NOT mean you have a security clearance.
Most active military DON'T have clearances.
Incorrect.
Security clearances come in different LEVELS.
Something someone who claims to have held a security clearance should
have known, don't you think?
In any event, the whole issue about Trump's clearance is MOOT because senile pervert Lyin' Biden REVOKED IT some time ago.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules
regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
If you really did have a clearance .. and remembered the
regulations .. then you'd know that to be untrue
Wrong again, Lyin' Asshole. The rules are ABUNDANTLY clear, but
YOU are obviously ignorant of them. For starters, taking
classified documents to an unsecured location is FORBIDDEN.
LOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific procedures
that prescribe just how that is done. Case in point, f there
weren't such 'removal' provisions, then how *couriers* could ever
do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from one secure
facility to another and DOES NOT have the authority to read the
document.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the evidence, a
criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training <-- on
procedures for spillage and breaches. The reality is that
procedural controls are inevitable and humans make mistakes, so if
everyone who's ever had anyviolation, spillage, or breach is
automatically a criminal, then you are confessing that you're a
criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized
removal and retention of classified documents or material (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without authority and
with the INTENT to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location"
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 1:47:53 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-11 17:35, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP growth. I figure its the least
that I can do after your early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K paper gain
get flipped that same year, plus 2022's downturn have had you bummed out, so you
could us some cheering up to start 2023.
"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to declassify any documents he took - not so for those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally declassify documents. There is a declassification
process that has to be followed. He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth...
...which you never could handle.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526 legally
remains the law of the land...and by definition within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for future presidents who can change it at will.
Precisely. Institutions run on paper, and there's no such paper.It's binding until a future president changes it...
...which Trump didn't...
...because there'd be an EO that did that.
Furthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC § 793(d):
To "willfully retain" sensitive national defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand to the officer or
employee of the United States entitled to receive it." expressly violates the Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so long
as they're still sensitive and information for national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18 USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a SHIT LOAD OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a
SINGLE classified document in his possession.
He also was a US Senator, and invariably had need-to-know committee responsibilities there too.Why? He WAS VP, Sunshine.
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right to
CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a private citizen either, until it has been documented as being
How the fucking hell do you know that?
Except that "intact" does not mean that it is active.Numerous government officials have left the government with their clearances INTACT, and this
DEFINITELY applies to former presidents.
When a clearance holder leaves a job, their clearance is suspended as of their last day of employment, but is left
intact for a period of [redacted] years. During this time, the clearance(s) may be reactivated without requiring a
reinvestigation, but after that, a new reinvestigation is required. The process facilitates gaps in employment.
He knows so much more about clearances than you do, Sunshine...
LOL! Are you SERIOUS, Fool??? Really, ARE YOU SERIOUS???? I have held a secret clearances in the past
by way of my employment at a National Laboratory, ...
Except that "had one" doesn't mean actually ever using it...
... nor being familiar in depth (practiced) with the relevant policies & regulations.
...and KNOW EXACTLY what the responsibilities are, ...
Nah. Change that "KNOW" to the past tense: "USED TO KNOW".
... UNLIKE YOU, a fucking FOREIGNER!!!!!!
Attributionally, it wasn't Alan who's making statements about the US Security Classification system.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.If you really did have a clearance .. and remembered the regulations .. then you'd know that to be untrue
"PERIOD".
-hh
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-14 11:03, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 4:06:11 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:36:15 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 4:15:04 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 1:47:53 AM UTC-5, Tommy
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-8, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-01-11 17:35, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP
growth. I figure its the least that I can do after your
early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K
paper gain get flipped that same year, plus 2022's
downturn have had you bummed out, so you could us some
cheering up to start 2023.
"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5,
Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to
declassify any documents he took - not so for
those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally
declassify documents. There is a
declassification process that has to be followed.
He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth... ...which you never could handle.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification
process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed
that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can
have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no
record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526
legally remains the law of the land...and by definition
within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to
it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications
done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for
future presidents who can change it at will.
It's binding until a future president changes it...
...which Trump didn't... ...because there'd be an EO that
did that.
Precisely. Institutions run on paper, and there's no such
paper.
Silence from Tommy.
He also was a US Senator, and invariably had need-to-knowFurthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense
against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC
§ 793(d): To "willfully retain" sensitive national
defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand
to the officer or employee of the United States
entitled to receive it." expressly violates the
Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require
documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so
long as they're still sensitive and information for
national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18
USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a
SHIT LOAD OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a SINGLE
classified document in his possession.
Why? He WAS VP, Sunshine.
committee responsibilities there too.
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his
clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right
to CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a
private citizen either, until it has been documented as
being
How the fucking hell do you know that?
Numerous government officials have left the government
with their clearances INTACT, and this DEFINITELY applies
to former presidents.
Except that "intact" does not mean that it is active.
Silence from Tommy.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
When a clearance holder leaves a job, their clearance is
suspended as of their last day of employment, but is left
intact for a period of [redacted] years. During this time, the
clearance(s) may be reactivated without requiring a
reinvestigation, but after that, a new reinvestigation is
required. The process facilitates gaps in employment.
You ARE a BORE - ALL ex-presidents and VPs have ACTIVE security
clearances, which is what "intact" means, you IDIOT.
No, "intact" is not the same as "active".
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Wrong.
'A security clearance becomes “inactive” once a person leaves the military or if their job responsibilities change and their need for clearance ends. Even after it has expired, a security clearance can be re-activated up to 24 months after its lapse date without having to go through the application process again.'
So your clearance can be "intact" (i.e. "able to be reactivated") for up to 2 years after you've left the role for which you needed the clearance.”Pow!”.
If you ever actually had a clearance, you'd know this.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Especially if you were ever responsible for managing others with
clearances.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Now while its generally true that former POTUS's traditionally have
had their clearances remained activated, it is always the next
Administration who controls & decides that. The Biden
Administration didn't authorize Trump's clearance to remain active,
so it isn't. FYI: Trump has zero legal authority to appeal this
decision.
PROVE THAT!!!
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/politics/biden-trump-intelligence-briefings.html>“Whack!”.
He knows so much more about clearances than you do,
Sunshine...
LOL! Are you SERIOUS, Fool??? Really, ARE YOU SERIOUS???? I
have held a secret clearances in the past by way of my
employment at a National Laboratory, ...
Except that "had one" doesn't mean actually ever using it...
... nor being familiar in depth (practiced) with the relevant
policies & regulations.
FUCK YOU - YES, I used it. You have NO IDEA what I secret
projects I worked on, and I am NOT going to tell you!
I'm not asking for what classified fish counters you worked on,
Tommy.
Gosh, Tommy doesn’t like “Acoustic Telemetry Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Passage…” to be succinctly summarized as ‘counting fish’.I NEVER worked on "fish counters." The projects that WERE classified related to National Security. The last one was completed a couple of years before I retired.
What I've said is that your comments are highly inconsistent with
having contemporary knowledge & experience in this area.
Have YOU ever had a security clearance?
I know a little bit more about HH than you do, Sunshine.“Can neither confirm nor deny”.
I'm sure he has.
Gosh, Tommy’s forgotten even _more_ of his alleged training.
...and KNOW EXACTLY what the responsibilities are, ...
Nah. Change that "KNOW" to the past tense: "USED TO KNOW".
WRONG AGAIN - the requirements are EXACTLY the same, but YOU have
no idea.
Requirements & procedures change, so even if you're not lying,
you're still more than a decade out of date.
Nothing that's not Open Literature and available to everyone. Case... UNLIKE YOU, a fucking FOREIGNER!!!!!!
Attributionally, it wasn't Alan who's making statements about
the US Security Classification system.
Oh, YES he was.
in point: "And even if he does declassify some things, there is a
procedure to follow and it wasn't followed." That's simply noting
the existence of EO 13526, which has its own Open Lit Wiki page at
URL: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526>
Plus Alan is former Canadian military, and CA has multiple
agreements with the US for the sharing of classified information,
which means that those who have access have been formally trained
on this too.
So the fuck what! Being in the military (if that is indeed true,
which I have my doubts) DOES NOT mean you have a security clearance. Most active military DON'T have clearances.
Incorrect.
Security clearances come in different LEVELS.
Something someone who claims to have held a security clearance should
have known, don't you think?
“ BONK!”
In any event, the whole issue about Trump's clearance is MOOT because senile pervert Lyin' Biden REVOKED IT some time ago.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules
regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
If you really did have a clearance .. and remembered the
regulations .. then you'd know that to be untrue
Wrong again, Lyin' Asshole. The rules are ABUNDANTLY clear, but
YOU are obviously ignorant of them. For starters, taking
classified documents to an unsecured location is FORBIDDEN.
LOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific procedures
that prescribe just how that is done. Case in point, f there
weren't such 'removal' provisions, then how *couriers* could ever
do their job?
Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving of documents, not reading them.LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from one secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the authority to read the document.
“ OUCH!”.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the evidence, a
criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training <-- on
procedures for spillage and breaches. The reality is that
procedural controls are inevitable and humans make mistakes, so if
everyone who's ever had anyviolation, spillage, or breach is
automatically a criminal, then you are confessing that you're a
criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without authority and
with the INTENT to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location"
“RIP!
SLOSH!
SOCK!
SPLAAT!
SPLATT!
SPLOOSH!
SWAAP!
SWISH!
SWOOSH!
THUNK!“.
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 6:51:39 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 2:20:55 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-14 11:03, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 4:06:11 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:36:15 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 4:15:04 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 1:47:53 AM UTC-5, Tommy
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-8, Alan
wrote:
On 2023-01-11 17:35, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:56:44 AM UTC-8, -hh
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:03:44 AM UTC-5,
Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-10 20:16, Moderate wrote:Hey, its Moderate!
How's things?
FYI, I'm forgiving the bet you lost on Trump's +4% GDP
growth. I figure its the least that I can do after your >>>>>>>> early 2018 “I am rich bitch!!” brag of just a $40K
paper gain get flipped that same year, plus 2022's
downturn have had you bummed out, so you could us some
cheering up to start 2023.
"John B." <[email protected]> Wrote in message:...
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-5,
Tommy wrote:
... At least Trump had the authority to
declassify any documents he took - not so for
those other two.
Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally
declassify documents. There is a
declassification process that has to be followed. >>>>>>>>>>> He didn't follow it.
That is a lie.
It's the truth... ...which you never could handle.
Executive Order 13526 outlines the declassification
process rules, which includes what the POTUS says his
legal responsibilities are. Trump could have changed
that, but it requires writing & signing a formal EO to
cancel the existing EO and its rules are before he can
have the authority to declassify by a different set of
rules (e.g., zero documentation). Since there is no
record of the cancelation of the current EO, 13526
legally remains the law of the land...and by definition >>>>>>>> within, the POTUS assigned himself as legally bound to
it.
Thus, with no written record of any declassifications
done in accordance with EO 13526, it didn't happen.
Sorry, LA, but this is an OBAMA EO, totally unbinding for >>>>>>> future presidents who can change it at will.
It's binding until a future president changes it...
...which Trump didn't... ...because there'd be an EO that
did that.
Precisely. Institutions run on paper, and there's no such
paper.
Silence from Tommy.
He also was a US Senator, and invariably had need-to-knowFurthermore, "declassified" is not a legal defense
against the provisions of the US Espionage Act; 18 USC
§ 793(d): To "willfully retain" sensitive national
defense information “and fail to deliver it on demand >>>>>>>> to the officer or employee of the United States
entitled to receive it." expressly violates the
Espionage Act.
Since the Espionage Act does not explicitly require
documents to be classified: unclassified documents, so
long as they're still sensitive and information for
national defense, can qualify too as violations of 18
USC § 793(d).
Which tells us that senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in a
SHIT LOAD OF TROUBLE! He NEVER should have had a SINGLE
classified document in his possession.
Why? He WAS VP, Sunshine.
committee responsibilities there too.
Likewise, once Trump departed from office, his
clearance was suspended, plus he does not have a right
to CUI ("Controlled Unclassified Information") as a
private citizen either, until it has been documented as >>>>>>>> being
How the fucking hell do you know that?
Numerous government officials have left the government
with their clearances INTACT, and this DEFINITELY applies >>>>>>> to former presidents.
Except that "intact" does not mean that it is active.
Silence from Tommy.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
When a clearance holder leaves a job, their clearance is
suspended as of their last day of employment, but is left
intact for a period of [redacted] years. During this time, the
clearance(s) may be reactivated without requiring a
reinvestigation, but after that, a new reinvestigation is
required. The process facilitates gaps in employment.
You ARE a BORE - ALL ex-presidents and VPs have ACTIVE security
clearances, which is what "intact" means, you IDIOT.
No, "intact" is not the same as "active".
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Wrong.
'A security clearance becomes “inactive” once a person leaves the military or if their job responsibilities change and their need for clearance ends. Even after it has expired, a security clearance can be re-activated up to 24 months after its lapse date without having to go through the application process again.'
So your clearance can be "intact" (i.e. "able to be reactivated") for up to 2 years after you've left the role for which you needed the clearance.
”Pow!”.
If you ever actually had a clearance, you'd know this.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Especially if you were ever responsible for managing others with
clearances.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Now while its generally true that former POTUS's traditionally have >> had their clearances remained activated, it is always the next
Administration who controls & decides that. The Biden
Administration didn't authorize Trump's clearance to remain active, >> so it isn't. FYI: Trump has zero legal authority to appeal this
decision.
PROVE THAT!!!
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/politics/biden-trump-intelligence-briefings.html>
“Whack!”.
He knows so much more about clearances than you do,
Sunshine...
LOL! Are you SERIOUS, Fool??? Really, ARE YOU SERIOUS???? I
have held a secret clearances in the past by way of my
employment at a National Laboratory, ...
Except that "had one" doesn't mean actually ever using it...
... nor being familiar in depth (practiced) with the relevant
policies & regulations.
FUCK YOU - YES, I used it. You have NO IDEA what I secret
projects I worked on, and I am NOT going to tell you!
I'm not asking for what classified fish counters you worked on,
Tommy.
I NEVER worked on "fish counters." The projects that WERE classified related to National Security. The last one was completed a couple of years before I retired.
Gosh, Tommy doesn’t like “Acoustic Telemetry Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Passage…” to be succinctly summarized as ‘counting fish’.
What I've said is that your comments are highly inconsistent with
having contemporary knowledge & experience in this area.
Have YOU ever had a security clearance?
I know a little bit more about HH than you do, Sunshine.
I'm sure he has.
“Can neither confirm nor deny”.
Gosh, Tommy’s forgotten even _more_ of his alleged training.
...and KNOW EXACTLY what the responsibilities are, ...
Nah. Change that "KNOW" to the past tense: "USED TO KNOW".
WRONG AGAIN - the requirements are EXACTLY the same, but YOU have >>> no idea.
Requirements & procedures change, so even if you're not lying,
you're still more than a decade out of date.
Nothing that's not Open Literature and available to everyone. Case... UNLIKE YOU, a fucking FOREIGNER!!!!!!
Attributionally, it wasn't Alan who's making statements about
the US Security Classification system.
Oh, YES he was.
in point: "And even if he does declassify some things, there is a
procedure to follow and it wasn't followed." That's simply noting
the existence of EO 13526, which has its own Open Lit Wiki page at
URL: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526>
Plus Alan is former Canadian military, and CA has multiple
agreements with the US for the sharing of classified information,
which means that those who have access have been formally trained
on this too.
So the fuck what! Being in the military (if that is indeed true,
which I have my doubts) DOES NOT mean you have a security clearance. Most active military DON'T have clearances.
Incorrect.
Sorry, but it is true. There are MILLIONS of military, but only a FEW HUNDRED
THOUSAND security clearances.
These are difficult and time-consuming to acquire. If you think that ALL military
have security clearances, then PROVE IT.
Security clearances come in different LEVELS.
Something someone who claims to have held a security clearance should have known, don't you think?
Common knowledge.
“ BONK!”
The sound of your head hitting the pavement.
In any event, the whole issue about Trump's clearance is MOOT because senile pervert Lyin' Biden REVOKED IT some time ago.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules
regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
If you really did have a clearance .. and remembered the
regulations .. then you'd know that to be untrue
Wrong again, Lyin' Asshole. The rules are ABUNDANTLY clear, but
YOU are obviously ignorant of them. For starters, taking
classified documents to an unsecured location is FORBIDDEN.
LOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific procedures
that prescribe just how that is done. Case in point, f there
weren't such 'removal' provisions, then how *couriers* could ever
do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from one secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the authority to read the document.
Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving of documents, not reading them.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me.
I think that the senile pervert himself took the documents because NO courier would have.
“ OUCH!”.
Yeah, the pain of you being wrong is horrible.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the evidence, a
criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training <-- on
procedures for spillage and breaches. The reality is that
procedural controls are inevitable and humans make mistakes, so if
everyone who's ever had anyviolation, spillage, or breach is
automatically a criminal, then you are confessing that you're a
criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without authority and with the INTENT to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 which I posted - not you.
YOU are claiming lack of intent, so YOU prove that.
The intent is obvious by the multiple documents at multiple locations.
You just don't absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in your pocket
and walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are arguing?
On 2023-01-13 09:17, One Putt wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 11:03:14 -0800, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2023-01-12 09:33, One Putt wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 23:29:45 -0800, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the rules
regarding secret documents. No discussion, PERIOD.
And yet somehow you can twist your brain and claim Trump wasn't...
Interesting.
I guess you speak from experience since you twist your brain and
refuse to accept any and all evidence that Hunter's laptop is actually >>>> his and the data hasn't been copied or tampered with.
Whatever, Irving.
You keep calling me Irving for some reason. I notice you consistently
do that when you can't refute me.
I call them as I see them, Irving.
It sure as hell did when I had a security clearance.
Wrong.
'A security clearance becomes �inactive� once a person leaves the
military or if their job responsibilities change and their need for
clearance ends. Even after it has expired, a security clearance can be >re-activated up to 24 months after its lapse date without having to go >through the application process again.'
So your clearance can be "intact" (i.e. "able to be reactivated") for up
to 2 years after you've left the role for which you needed the clearance.
Oh, YES he was.Nothing that's not Open Literature and available to everyone.
Case in point: "And even if he does declassify some things,
there is a procedure to follow and it wasn't followed."
That's simply noting the existence of EO 13526, which has its
own Open Lit Wiki page at URL:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526>
Plus Alan is former Canadian military, and CA has multiple
agreements with the US for the sharing of classified
information, which means that those who have access have been
formally trained on this too.
So the fuck what! Being in the military (if that is indeed
true, which I have my doubts) DOES NOT mean you have a security
clearance. Most active military DON'T have clearances.
Incorrect.
Sorry, but it is true. There are MILLIONS of military, but only a FEW
HUNDRED THOUSAND security clearances. These are difficult and
time-consuming to acquire. If you think that ALL military have
security clearances, then PROVE IT.
Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving of documents, notIn any event, the whole issue about Trump's clearance is MOOT
because senile pervert Lyin' Biden REVOKED IT some time ago.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the
rules regarding secret documents. No discussion,
PERIOD.
If you really did have a clearance .. and remembered the
regulations .. then you'd know that to be untrue
Wrong again, Lyin' Asshole. The rules are ABUNDANTLY clear,
but YOU are obviously ignorant of them. For starters,
taking classified documents to an unsecured location is
FORBIDDEN.
LOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific
procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case in
point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions, then how
*couriers* could ever do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from one
secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the authority to
read the document.
reading them.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me. I think that the senile
pervert himself took the documents because NO courier would have.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the evidence,
a criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training <-- on
procedures for spillage and breaches. The reality is that
procedural controls are inevitable and humans make mistakes,
so if everyone who's ever had anyviolation, spillage, or
breach is automatically a criminal, then you are confessing
that you're a criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 -
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or
material (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The
penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or
both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without authority
and with the INTENT to retain such documents or materials at an
unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 which I
posted - not you. YOU are claiming lack of intent, so YOU prove that.
The intent is obvious by the multiple documents at multiple
locations. You just don't absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in
your pocket and walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are
arguing?
On 2023-01-16 23:10, Tommy wrote:
Oh, YES he was.Nothing that's not Open Literature and available to everyone.
Case in point: "And even if he does declassify some things,
there is a procedure to follow and it wasn't followed."
That's simply noting the existence of EO 13526, which has its
own Open Lit Wiki page at URL:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526>
Plus Alan is former Canadian military, and CA has multiple
agreements with the US for the sharing of classified
information, which means that those who have access have been
formally trained on this too.
So the fuck what! Being in the military (if that is indeed
true, which I have my doubts) DOES NOT mean you have a security
clearance. Most active military DON'T have clearances.
Incorrect.
Sorry, but it is true. There are MILLIONS of military, but only a FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND security clearances. These are difficult and time-consuming to acquire. If you think that ALL military haveSunshine...
security clearances, then PROVE IT.
...you are just so far out of your depth here with HH.
Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving of documents, notIn any event, the whole issue about Trump's clearance is MOOT
because senile pervert Lyin' Biden REVOKED IT some time ago.
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is in TOTAL DEFIANCE of the
rules regarding secret documents. No discussion,
PERIOD.
If you really did have a clearance .. and remembered the
regulations .. then you'd know that to be untrue
Wrong again, Lyin' Asshole. The rules are ABUNDANTLY clear,
but YOU are obviously ignorant of them. For starters,
taking classified documents to an unsecured location is
FORBIDDEN.
LOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific
procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case in
point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions, then how
*couriers* could ever do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from one
secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the authority to
read the document.
reading them.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me. I think that the senileReally?
pervert himself took the documents because NO courier would have.
The Vice-President of the United States couldn't get a courier with appropriate classification to deliver documents to him?
Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the evidence,
a criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training <-- on
procedures for spillage and breaches. The reality is that
procedural controls are inevitable and humans make mistakes,
so if everyone who's ever had anyviolation, spillage, or
breach is automatically a criminal, then you are confessing
that you're a criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 -
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or
material (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The
penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or
both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without authority
and with the INTENT to retain such documents or materials at an
unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 which IHow does two locations make intent "obvious"?
posted - not you. YOU are claiming lack of intent, so YOU prove that.
The intent is obvious by the multiple documents at multiple
locations. You just don't absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in
your pocket and walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are
arguing?
Really?Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving of documents, notLOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific
procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case in
point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions, then how
*couriers* could ever do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from one
secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the authority to
read the document.
reading them.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me. I think that the senile
pervert himself took the documents because NO courier would have.
The Vice-President of the United States couldn't get a courier with
appropriate classification to deliver documents to him?
How does two locations make intent "obvious"?Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the evidence,
a criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training <-- on
procedures for spillage and breaches. The reality is that
procedural controls are inevitable and humans make mistakes,
so if everyone who's ever had anyviolation, spillage, or
breach is automatically a criminal, then you are confessing
that you're a criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 -
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or
material (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The
penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or
both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without authority
and with the INTENT to retain such documents or materials at an
unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 which I
posted - not you. YOU are claiming lack of intent, so YOU prove that.
The intent is obvious by the multiple documents at multiple
locations. You just don't absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in
your pocket and walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are
arguing?
You know what is hilarious?
On 2023-01-21 23:53, Tommy wrote:
Well?Really?Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving of documents, not >>>> reading them.LOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific
procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case in
point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions, then how
*couriers* could ever do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from one
secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the authority to
read the document.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me. I think that the senile
pervert himself took the documents because NO courier would have.
The Vice-President of the United States couldn't get a courier with
appropriate classification to deliver documents to him?
How does two locations make intent "obvious"?Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the evidence, >>>>>>>> a criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training <-- on
procedures for spillage and breaches. The reality is that
procedural controls are inevitable and humans make mistakes,
so if everyone who's ever had anyviolation, spillage, or
breach is automatically a criminal, then you are confessing
that you're a criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 -
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or
material (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The >>>>>> penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or
both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without authority
and with the INTENT to retain such documents or materials at an
unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 which I
posted - not you. YOU are claiming lack of intent, so YOU prove that. >>> The intent is obvious by the multiple documents at multiple
locations. You just don't absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in >>> your pocket and walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are
arguing?
You know what is hilarious?You're inability to answer my questions?
:-)
On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-21 23:53, Tommy wrote:
Well?Really?Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving ofLOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific
procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case
in point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions,
then how *couriers* could ever do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from
one secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the
authority to read the document.
documents, not reading them.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me. I think that the
senile pervert himself took the documents because NO courier
would have.
The Vice-President of the United States couldn't get a courier
with appropriate classification to deliver documents to him?
You're inability to answer my questions?How does two locations make intent "obvious"?Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the
evidence, a criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training
<-- on procedures for spillage and breaches. The
reality is that procedural controls are inevitable
and humans make mistakes, so if everyone who's ever
had anyviolation, spillage, or breach is
automatically a criminal, then you are confessing
that you're a criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 -
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified
documents or material
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The
penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for not more than five
years, or both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without
authority and with the INTENT to retain such documents or
materials at an unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924
which I posted - not you. YOU are claiming lack of intent, so
YOU prove that. The intent is obvious by the multiple
documents at multiple locations. You just don't
absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in your pocket and
walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are arguing?
You know what is hilarious?
:-)
Because your question is superfluous (unnecessary, especially through
being more than enough), which is your general tactic when you are
wrong. Intent is to be decided by a jury; neither you nor I know what
the pervert's intention was when he took the documents to those FOUR different places. One solution: have the senile pervert TESTIFY under
oath AFTER the investigation is complete and ALL people involved have
been interviewed. Certainly, you could have no objection to that.
On 2023-01-22 09:52, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-21 23:53, Tommy wrote:
Well?Really?Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving ofLOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific
procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case
in point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions,
then how *couriers* could ever do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from
one secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the
authority to read the document.
documents, not reading them.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me. I think that the
senile pervert himself took the documents because NO courier
would have.
The Vice-President of the United States couldn't get a courier
with appropriate classification to deliver documents to him?
You're inability to answer my questions?How does two locations make intent "obvious"?Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the
evidence, a criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training
<-- on procedures for spillage and breaches. The
reality is that procedural controls are inevitable
and humans make mistakes, so if everyone who's ever
had anyviolation, spillage, or breach is
automatically a criminal, then you are confessing
that you're a criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 -
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified
documents or material
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The
penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for not more than five
years, or both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without
authority and with the INTENT to retain such documents or
materials at an unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924
which I posted - not you. YOU are claiming lack of intent, so
YOU prove that. The intent is obvious by the multiple
documents at multiple locations. You just don't
absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in your pocket and
walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are arguing?
You know what is hilarious?
:-)
Because your question is superfluous (unnecessary, especially through being more than enough), which is your general tactic when you areExcept YOU put forward the the claim that:
wrong. Intent is to be decided by a jury; neither you nor I know what
the pervert's intention was when he took the documents to those FOUR different places. One solution: have the senile pervert TESTIFY under
oath AFTER the investigation is complete and ALL people involved have
been interviewed. Certainly, you could have no objection to that.
"The intent is obvious by the multiple documents at multiple locations."
On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 9:54:12 AM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-22 09:52, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:Except YOU put forward the the claim that:
On 2023-01-21 23:53, Tommy wrote:
Well?Really?Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving ofLOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific
procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case
in point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions,
then how *couriers* could ever do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from
one secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the
authority to read the document.
documents, not reading them.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me. I think that the
senile pervert himself took the documents because NO courier
would have.
The Vice-President of the United States couldn't get a courier
with appropriate classification to deliver documents to him?
You're inability to answer my questions?How does two locations make intent "obvious"?Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the
evidence, a criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training
<-- on procedures for spillage and breaches. The
reality is that procedural controls are inevitable
and humans make mistakes, so if everyone who's ever
had anyviolation, spillage, or breach is
automatically a criminal, then you are confessing
that you're a criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 -
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified
documents or material
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The
penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for not more than five
years, or both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without
authority and with the INTENT to retain such documents or
materials at an unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924
which I posted - not you. YOU are claiming lack of intent, so
YOU prove that. The intent is obvious by the multiple
documents at multiple locations. You just don't
absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in your pocket and
walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are arguing?
You know what is hilarious?
:-)
Because your question is superfluous (unnecessary, especially through
being more than enough), which is your general tactic when you are
wrong. Intent is to be decided by a jury; neither you nor I know what
the pervert's intention was when he took the documents to those FOUR
different places. One solution: have the senile pervert TESTIFY under
oath AFTER the investigation is complete and ALL people involved have
been interviewed. Certainly, you could have no objection to that.
"The intent is obvious by the multiple documents at multiple locations."
You didn't answer if you had an objection to Lyin' Biden testifying.
On 2023-01-25 18:10, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 9:54:12 AM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-22 09:52, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:Except YOU put forward the the claim that:
On 2023-01-21 23:53, Tommy wrote:
Well?Really?Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving ofLOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific
procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case >>>>>>>>>>> in point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions,
then how *couriers* could ever do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from
one secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the
authority to read the document.
documents, not reading them.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me. I think that the
senile pervert himself took the documents because NO courier
would have.
The Vice-President of the United States couldn't get a courier
with appropriate classification to deliver documents to him?
You're inability to answer my questions?How does two locations make intent "obvious"?Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the
evidence, a criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training
<-- on procedures for spillage and breaches. The
reality is that procedural controls are inevitable
and humans make mistakes, so if everyone who's ever
had anyviolation, spillage, or breach is
automatically a criminal, then you are confessing
that you're a criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 -
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified
documents or material
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The
penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for not more than five
years, or both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without
authority and with the INTENT to retain such documents or >>>>>>>>> materials at an unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924
which I posted - not you. YOU are claiming lack of intent, so >>>>>>> YOU prove that. The intent is obvious by the multiple
documents at multiple locations. You just don't
absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in your pocket and
walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are arguing?
You know what is hilarious?
:-)
Because your question is superfluous (unnecessary, especially through >>> being more than enough), which is your general tactic when you are
wrong. Intent is to be decided by a jury; neither you nor I know what >>> the pervert's intention was when he took the documents to those FOUR
different places. One solution: have the senile pervert TESTIFY under >>> oath AFTER the investigation is complete and ALL people involved have >>> been interviewed. Certainly, you could have no objection to that.
"The intent is obvious by the multiple documents at multiple locations."
You didn't answer if you had an objection to Lyin' Biden testifying.Where was I asked that?
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 7:49:21 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-25 18:10, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 9:54:12 AM UTC-8, Alan wrote:Where was I asked that?
On 2023-01-22 09:52, Tommy wrote:You didn't answer if you had an objection to Lyin' Biden testifying.
On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:Except YOU put forward the the claim that:
On 2023-01-21 23:53, Tommy wrote:
Well?Really?Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving ofLOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific >>>>>>>>>>>>> procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case >>>>>>>>>>>>> in point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>> then how *couriers* could ever do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from
one secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the
authority to read the document.
documents, not reading them.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me. I think that the
senile pervert himself took the documents because NO courier >>>>>>>>> would have.
The Vice-President of the United States couldn't get a courier >>>>>>>> with appropriate classification to deliver documents to him?
You're inability to answer my questions?How does two locations make intent "obvious"?Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the
evidence, a criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training
<-- on procedures for spillage and breaches. The
reality is that procedural controls are inevitable
and humans make mistakes, so if everyone who's ever
had anyviolation, spillage, or breach is
automatically a criminal, then you are confessing
that you're a criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 -
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified
documents or material
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The >>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined >>>>>>>>>>>> under this title or imprisoned for not more than five
years, or both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without
authority and with the INTENT to retain such documents or >>>>>>>>>>> materials at an unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924
which I posted - not you. YOU are claiming lack of intent, so >>>>>>>>> YOU prove that. The intent is obvious by the multiple
documents at multiple locations. You just don't
absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in your pocket and
walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are arguing?
You know what is hilarious?
:-)
Because your question is superfluous (unnecessary, especially through >>>>> being more than enough), which is your general tactic when you are
wrong. Intent is to be decided by a jury; neither you nor I know what >>>>> the pervert's intention was when he took the documents to those FOUR >>>>> different places. One solution: have the senile pervert TESTIFY under >>>>> oath AFTER the investigation is complete and ALL people involved have >>>>> been interviewed. Certainly, you could have no objection to that.
"The intent is obvious by the multiple documents at multiple locations." >>>
Check my posts, Fool.
On 2023-01-27 21:25, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 7:49:21 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-25 18:10, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 9:54:12 AM UTC-8, Alan wrote:Where was I asked that?
On 2023-01-22 09:52, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:Except YOU put forward the the claim that:
On 2023-01-21 23:53, Tommy wrote:
Well?Really?Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving ofLOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific >>>>>>>>>>>>> procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case >>>>>>>>>>>>> in point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>> then how *couriers* could ever do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from >>>>>>>>>>>> one secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the >>>>>>>>>>>> authority to read the document.
documents, not reading them.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me. I think that the >>>>>>>>> senile pervert himself took the documents because NO courier >>>>>>>>> would have.
The Vice-President of the United States couldn't get a courier >>>>>>>> with appropriate classification to deliver documents to him?
You're inability to answer my questions?How does two locations make intent "obvious"?Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence, a criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training >>>>>>>>>>>>> <-- on procedures for spillage and breaches. The
reality is that procedural controls are inevitable >>>>>>>>>>>>> and humans make mistakes, so if everyone who's ever >>>>>>>>>>>>> had anyviolation, spillage, or breach is
automatically a criminal, then you are confessing >>>>>>>>>>>>> that you're a criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - >>>>>>>>>>>> Unauthorized removal and retention of classified
documents or material
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The >>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined >>>>>>>>>>>> under this title or imprisoned for not more than five >>>>>>>>>>>> years, or both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without >>>>>>>>>>> authority and with the INTENT to retain such documents or >>>>>>>>>>> materials at an unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 >>>>>>>>> which I posted - not you. YOU are claiming lack of intent, so >>>>>>>>> YOU prove that. The intent is obvious by the multiple
documents at multiple locations. You just don't
absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in your pocket and >>>>>>>>> walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are arguing?
You know what is hilarious?
:-)
Because your question is superfluous (unnecessary, especially through >>>>> being more than enough), which is your general tactic when you are >>>>> wrong. Intent is to be decided by a jury; neither you nor I know what >>>>> the pervert's intention was when he took the documents to those FOUR >>>>> different places. One solution: have the senile pervert TESTIFY under >>>>> oath AFTER the investigation is complete and ALL people involved have >>>>> been interviewed. Certainly, you could have no objection to that.
"The intent is obvious by the multiple documents at multiple locations."
You didn't answer if you had an objection to Lyin' Biden testifying.
Check my posts, Fool.Nope.
You made a claim, now support it.
On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 9:33:22 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
On 2023-01-27 21:25, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 7:49:21 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote:Nope.
On 2023-01-25 18:10, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 9:54:12 AM UTC-8, Alan wrote:Where was I asked that?
On 2023-01-22 09:52, Tommy wrote:You didn't answer if you had an objection to Lyin' Biden testifying.
On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 11:55:06 PM UTC-8, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-01-21 23:53, Tommy wrote:"The intent is obvious by the multiple documents at multiple locations." >>>>>
You're inability to answer my questions?Really?Except that Tommy’s claim was only on the moving ofLOL! Wrong example cupcake. Because there's specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> procedures that prescribe just how that is done. Case >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in point, f there weren't such 'removal' provisions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then how *couriers* could ever do their job?
LOL! A courier is TRANSPORTING a secret document from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one secure facility to another and DOES NOT have the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority to read the document.
documents, not reading them.
No, it is YOU that made the claim, not me. I think that the >>>>>>>>>>> senile pervert himself took the documents because NO courier >>>>>>>>>>> would have.
The Vice-President of the United States couldn't get a courier >>>>>>>>>> with appropriate classification to deliver documents to him? >>>>>>>> Well?
How does two locations make intent "obvious"?Senile pervert Lyin' Biden is, on the face of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence, a criminal.
Nope. You're overlooking your --> alleged training >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <-- on procedures for spillage and breaches. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality is that procedural controls are inevitable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and humans make mistakes, so if everyone who's ever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had anyviolation, spillage, or breach is
automatically a criminal, then you are confessing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you're a criminal too.
Yup, he is. This is covered in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unauthorized removal and retention of classified
documents or material
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924). The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalty for violating just this law is "shall be fined >>>>>>>>>>>>>> under this title or imprisoned for not more than five >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, or both."
Interesting that you missed this:
"KNOWINGLY removes such documents or materials without >>>>>>>>>>>>> authority and with the INTENT to retain such documents or >>>>>>>>>>>>> materials at an unauthorized location"
Didn't miss shit - it is all there in 18 U.S. Code § 1924 >>>>>>>>>>> which I posted - not you. YOU are claiming lack of intent, so >>>>>>>>>>> YOU prove that. The intent is obvious by the multiple
documents at multiple locations. You just don't
absent-mindedly put TOP SECRET documents in your pocket and >>>>>>>>>>> walk out of the office, or is THAT what you are arguing?
You know what is hilarious?
:-)
Because your question is superfluous (unnecessary, especially through >>>>>>> being more than enough), which is your general tactic when you are >>>>>>> wrong. Intent is to be decided by a jury; neither you nor I know what >>>>>>> the pervert's intention was when he took the documents to those FOUR >>>>>>> different places. One solution: have the senile pervert TESTIFY under >>>>>>> oath AFTER the investigation is complete and ALL people involved have >>>>>>> been interviewed. Certainly, you could have no objection to that. >>>>>> Except YOU put forward the the claim that:
Check my posts, Fool.
You made a claim, now support it.
Check my posts, Fool.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 165:20:18 |
| Calls: | 12,096 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,001 |
| Messages: | 6,517,805 |