Author Topic: +1 to the Jan 6 count  (Read 84535 times)

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1275 on: July 19, 2023, 01:51:43 PM »
Typical anti-American fascist.  Cheering the trampling of individual liberty, so long as it benefits his party.   

Typical Trumptardian hypocrite.  Ignoring the criminal acts of individuals, so long as it benefits his party.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1276 on: July 19, 2023, 01:53:14 PM »
In addition to trying to interfere with the 2024 election, this Trump persecution is designed to divert attention away from this corruption.  It's a just staggering amount of evidence at this point.

Interference?  You mean like Trumpy's interference in the 2020 election?   ::)

Naw, no diversion necessary.  Just the wheels of justice turning.  And yes, the amount of evidence is staggering at this point. The evidence against Trumpy. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1277 on: July 19, 2023, 02:10:13 PM »
Interference?  You mean like Trumpy's interference in the 2020 election?   ::)

Naw, no diversion necessary.  Just the wheels of justice turning.  And yes, the amount of evidence is staggering at this point. The evidence against Trumpy.

Trump didn't interfere with the 2020 election.  He lost.  He left office. 

You realize calling him "Trumpy" makes you sound like a little kid? 

It's absolutely a diversion.  But rest easy.  You and your fellow anti-American fascists don't have anything to worry about.  I doubt there is any accountability.  And if I were a betting man I'd say Biden gets reelected. 

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59764
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1278 on: July 19, 2023, 02:12:35 PM »
Trump didn't interfere with the 2020 election.  He lost.  He left office. 

You realize calling him "Trumpy" makes you sound like a little kid? 

It's absolutely a diversion.  But rest easy.  You and your fellow anti-American fascists don't have anything to worry about.  I doubt there is any accountability.  And if I were a betting man I'd say Biden gets reelected.

He’s reading cue cards from the MSM

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1279 on: July 19, 2023, 02:14:46 PM »
He’s reading cue cards from the MSM

Absolutely.  A bot who is incapable of independent thought.

It's crazy how many people blindly support the insane and criminal things happening right before our eyes.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1280 on: July 19, 2023, 02:16:02 PM »
Trump didn't interfere with the 2020 election.  He lost.  He left office. 

You realize calling him "Trumpy" makes you sound like a little kid? 

It's absolutely a diversion.  But rest easy.  You and your fellow anti-American fascists don't have anything to worry about.  I doubt there is any accountability.  And if I were a betting man I'd say Biden gets reelected.

So trying to "find" votes, wanting your AG to get involved, or your VP not certify the actual votes doesn't count as interference?   ::)

No it isn't a diversion.  Well maybe for the Trumpturds.  But everyone else can actually multitask with their thoughts and focus on different things.  Amazing how weeks ago, no.. months ago, no.... a year ago.... these people knew to time their investigations and filings for this very week because this was the week a distraction was needed.   ::)

Might want to try a better excuse.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1281 on: July 19, 2023, 02:17:11 PM »
Absolutely.  A bot who is incapable of independent thought.

It's crazy how many people blindly support the insane and criminal things happening right before our eyes.


Like you and your Trumpy crimes ignorance? 


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1282 on: July 19, 2023, 02:47:01 PM »
So trying to "find" votes, wanting your AG to get involved, or your VP not certify the actual votes doesn't count as interference?   ::)

No it isn't a diversion.  Well maybe for the Trumpturds.  But everyone else can actually multitask with their thoughts and focus on different things.  Amazing how weeks ago, no.. months ago, no.... a year ago.... these people knew to time their investigations and filings for this very week because this was the week a distraction was needed.   ::)

Might want to try a better excuse.

He didn't try and find votes in Georgia.  That talking point has been debunked.  No, telling his VP not to certify the actual votes didn't interfere with the election, any more than the Democrats who tried to stop the electoral college from voting for Trump in 2016 interfered with the election. 

Anyone who actually looks at multiple news sources today can see that Fox News is highlighting the whistleblower testimony, while most liberal rags are not.  Yes persecuting Trump is an intentional distraction. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1283 on: July 19, 2023, 02:47:36 PM »
Like you and your Trumpy crimes ignorance?

"Trumpy."  Such a little kid.  lol

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1284 on: July 19, 2023, 02:49:18 PM »
He didn't try and find votes in Georgia.  That talking point has been debunked.  No, telling his VP not to certify the actual votes didn't interfere with the election, any more than the Democrats who tried to stop the electoral college from voting for Trump in 2016 interfered with the election. 

Anyone who actually looks at multiple news sources today can see that Fox News is highlighting the whistleblower testimony, while most liberal rags are not.  Yes persecuting Trump is an intentional distraction.

So that phone call with Brian was a lie?  What do you call telling his VP not to certify the votes then?

Actually, I see the whistle blower listed on many liberal sites.  Not sure which ones you are looking at.  Everyone that popped up for me has it.

Anything else?

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1285 on: July 19, 2023, 02:49:49 PM »
"Trumpy."  Such a little kid.  lol

Yes, he is.  A whining infantile little kid who is about to get spanked.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1286 on: July 19, 2023, 03:51:40 PM »
So that phone call with Brian was a lie?  What do you call telling his VP not to certify the votes then?

Actually, I see the whistle blower listed on many liberal sites.  Not sure which ones you are looking at.  Everyone that popped up for me has it.

Anything else?

Your spin on the phone call is a lie, just like the Charlottesville "very fine people," the Ukraine call, etc. 

Telling his VP not to certify the votes was contesting the election.  Just like the Democrats who tried to convince the electors in 2016 not to vote for Trump.

There is a huge difference between seeing something "listed" on a website and it being the lead story.  I looked at CNN, Huffington Post, and MSNBC.  Not the lead story on any of them.  But it is (or was) on Fox and The Hill. 

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1287 on: July 19, 2023, 05:25:21 PM »
Your spin on the phone call is a lie, just like the Charlottesville "very fine people," the Ukraine call, etc. 

Telling his VP not to certify the votes was contesting the election.  Just like the Democrats who tried to convince the electors in 2016 not to vote for Trump.

There is a huge difference between seeing something "listed" on a website and it being the lead story.  I looked at CNN, Huffington Post, and MSNBC.  Not the lead story on any of them.  But it is (or was) on Fox and The Hill.

hahhaaha.  Don't worry, we will see if that phone call was a lie or not.   :)     We will see whose "spin" is true or false.  You also tried that lie "spin" that there was no declassification process for those documents either.  That has long been proven to be wrong.  Good thing I leaned toward more factual instances.

Sure he was just "contesting the election".  Just like these criminals on this thread and the fake electors were "contesting the election".


LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1289 on: July 19, 2023, 06:09:34 PM »
hahhaaha.  Don't worry, we will see if that phone call was a lie or not.   :)     We will see whose "spin" is true or false.  You also tried that lie "spin" that there was no declassification process for those documents either.  That has long been proven to be wrong.  Good thing I leaned toward more factual instances.

Sure he was just "contesting the election".  Just like these criminals on this thread and the fake electors were "contesting the election".

There is no declassification process for the POTUS.  To conclude otherwise means whoever developed the "process" actually controls whether documents can be declassified instead of the POTUS.  But you can "leaned toward" whatever "factual instances" you want.  You don't care about being wrong or repeating talking points like a bot.

Correct.  Contesting is not synonymous with interfering.  What Biden is doing through his DOJ and his state surrogates is interfering (or attempting to interfere) with the 2024 election.  They don't trust Biden enough to just beat Trump on the merits.  And they don't have the Covid excuse this time.  They are so afraid of Trump that they have to try and put the man in prison for life.  It's crazy.  Reminds me of how Democrats were so afraid of Bernie Sanders that they used Super Delegates to beat him in 2016 and got behind Biden in 2020.   

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1290 on: July 19, 2023, 06:53:06 PM »
There is no declassification process for the POTUS.  To conclude otherwise means whoever developed the "process" actually controls whether documents can be declassified instead of the POTUS.  But you can "leaned toward" whatever "factual instances" you want.  You don't care about being wrong or repeating talking points like a bot.

Correct.  Contesting is not synonymous with interfering.  What Biden is doing through his DOJ and his state surrogates is interfering (or attempting to interfere) with the 2024 election.  They don't trust Biden enough to just beat Trump on the merits.  And they don't have the Covid excuse this time.  They are so afraid of Trump that they have to try and put the man in prison for life.  It's crazy.  Reminds me of how Democrats were so afraid of Bernie Sanders that they used Super Delegates to beat him in 2016 and got behind Biden in 2020.   

Yes there is a process.  It has been made clear.  If there wasn't, then why haven't Trumpy's attorneys actually made this argument on his behalf?  Maybe you should write them and let them know they are incompetent.   ::)

Biden whipped Trumpy just fine last time.  I don't recall Biden filing any lawsuits or being the plantiff to any indictments against Trumpy.  Nor any other politician.  No one is afraid of Trumpy.  No one.

So these illegal electors were just "contesting".  By all means, let the Michigan AG know that.  Case closed.  You can probably write both letters on behalf of Trumpy and the 16 who are charged now in one night.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1291 on: July 19, 2023, 07:19:28 PM »
Yes there is a process.  It has been made clear.  If there wasn't, then why haven't Trumpy's attorneys actually made this argument on his behalf?  Maybe you should write them and let them know they are incompetent.   ::)

Biden whipped Trumpy just fine last time.  I don't recall Biden filing any lawsuits or being the plantiff to any indictments against Trumpy.  Nor any other politician.  No one is afraid of Trumpy.  No one.

So these illegal electors were just "contesting".  By all means, let the Michigan AG know that.  Case closed.  You can probably write both letters on behalf of Trumpy and the 16 who are charged now in one night.

If you actually tried to think about this, you'd see how illogical your position is.  What process does the POTUS have to follow to declassify documents and who enacted that process? 

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1292 on: July 19, 2023, 07:32:43 PM »
If you actually tried to think about this, you'd see how illogical your position is.  What process does the POTUS have to follow to declassify documents and who enacted that process?

You mean besides using his mind?   ::)

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/

The system of classifying national security documents is largely a bureaucratic process used by the federal government to control how executive branch officials handle information, whose release could cause the country harm. The government has, however, prosecuted cases for both mistaken and deliberate mishandling of information. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through use of executive orders.

Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies.

In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said.

As the new ABA Legal Fact Check notes, the extent of a president’s legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials — without following formal procedures — has yet to be challenged in court.

---

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/government-classification-and-mar-lago-documents

The Constitution also provides Congress with significant authority in the area of national security. In areas where the president and Congress share power, Congress may choose to legislate in ways that limit the president’s authority. For example, because Congress has specified that only the Department of Energy may declassify certain nuclear information, the president has no authority to do so.

Notably, some of the documents the FBI retrieved from Mar-a-Lago had Formerly Restricted Data classification markings on them. Formerly Restricted Data can include information about the nuclear stockpile size, current and past locations of nuclear weapons, weapons yield information (i.e., how powerful they are), and above- or below-ground test results. Under long-standing interpretations of the Atomic Energy Act, such information may be declassified only by the Departments of Energy and Defense.

The rules for declassification are set forth in a presidential executive order and implementing regulations. These rules have the force of law, which means they are binding on all who classify or declassify information. Of course, a president who wishes to alter their terms has a ready means to do so: he can simply revoke or revise the order. In that sense, a president is not truly “bound” by an executive order. While that order remains in force, however, respect for the rule of law suggests that he must abide by it. 

The government has taken a different view. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the Department of Justice issued a secret legal memorandum opining that presidents need not adhere to executive orders and that if they do not comply with an executive order, they have simply “waived” or “modified” it through their actions. Moreover, according to the memorandum, the public need not be notified of the waiver/modification. When the gist of the memorandum became public — thanks to the efforts of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) — it came under heavy criticism, but there is no public indication that it has been withdrawn.

One thing the president cannot do, though, is declassify information “by thinking about it” — i.e., without communicating that decision to anyone else. This conclusion follows not from any particular legal requirements but rather from the very essence of what it means to classify or declassify information. As noted above, these are two-step processes: first, an official determines whether the information requires protection, and second, the information is flagged to ensure that the protections are applied or removed. If an official claims to have classified or declassified information after taking the first step but not the second, it’s like a customer saying she ordered food at a restaurant when she has decided what she wants to eat but hasn’t told the waiter.


---

But don't worry.  The truth will come out in the trial.   :)



Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1293 on: July 19, 2023, 07:57:58 PM »
You mean besides using his mind?   ::)

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2022/10/fact-check-presidential-authority/

The system of classifying national security documents is largely a bureaucratic process used by the federal government to control how executive branch officials handle information, whose release could cause the country harm. The government has, however, prosecuted cases for both mistaken and deliberate mishandling of information. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through use of executive orders.

Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies.

In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said.

As the new ABA Legal Fact Check notes, the extent of a president’s legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials — without following formal procedures — has yet to be challenged in court.

---

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/government-classification-and-mar-lago-documents

The Constitution also provides Congress with significant authority in the area of national security. In areas where the president and Congress share power, Congress may choose to legislate in ways that limit the president’s authority. For example, because Congress has specified that only the Department of Energy may declassify certain nuclear information, the president has no authority to do so.

Notably, some of the documents the FBI retrieved from Mar-a-Lago had Formerly Restricted Data classification markings on them. Formerly Restricted Data can include information about the nuclear stockpile size, current and past locations of nuclear weapons, weapons yield information (i.e., how powerful they are), and above- or below-ground test results. Under long-standing interpretations of the Atomic Energy Act, such information may be declassified only by the Departments of Energy and Defense.

The rules for declassification are set forth in a presidential executive order and implementing regulations. These rules have the force of law, which means they are binding on all who classify or declassify information. Of course, a president who wishes to alter their terms has a ready means to do so: he can simply revoke or revise the order. In that sense, a president is not truly “bound” by an executive order. While that order remains in force, however, respect for the rule of law suggests that he must abide by it. 

The government has taken a different view. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the Department of Justice issued a secret legal memorandum opining that presidents need not adhere to executive orders and that if they do not comply with an executive order, they have simply “waived” or “modified” it through their actions. Moreover, according to the memorandum, the public need not be notified of the waiver/modification. When the gist of the memorandum became public — thanks to the efforts of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) — it came under heavy criticism, but there is no public indication that it has been withdrawn.

One thing the president cannot do, though, is declassify information “by thinking about it” — i.e., without communicating that decision to anyone else. This conclusion follows not from any particular legal requirements but rather from the very essence of what it means to classify or declassify information. As noted above, these are two-step processes: first, an official determines whether the information requires protection, and second, the information is flagged to ensure that the protections are applied or removed. If an official claims to have classified or declassified information after taking the first step but not the second, it’s like a customer saying she ordered food at a restaurant when she has decided what she wants to eat but hasn’t told the waiter.


---

But don't worry.  The truth will come out in the trial.   :)

So you refuse to try and think independently about this.  You are confusing individuals and entities with the POTUS.  No other person in the country has the classification and declassification power held by the POTUS.  What specific entity requires that the POTUS follow a certain process to declassify classified info?  And what is that specific process that the POTUS must follow?

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15020
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1294 on: July 19, 2023, 08:06:56 PM »
Trump didn't interfere with the 2020 election.  He lost.  He left office.




You really make me question your honesty with this remark. You had to have an aneurism or hit your head to forget Trump didn't just leave office. He called state leaders, election officials, telling them to find the votes needed to show he won. He filed frivolous lawsuits based on lies. You CAN'T get more devious than that unless you were to rile up a crowd and send them marching towards congress after he encouraged supporters to descend on the Capitol grounds and "cheer" on senators who would break laws governing U.S. elections.

Either you were being facetious or there is an honesty issue here.

I'm thinking you are at a point where you are being intellectually dishonest. as Lurker had shown in the above posts you were wrong. Admitting you were wrong is not a sign of weakness outside of Trumps world.. maybe it's time you come clean?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63862
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1295 on: July 19, 2023, 08:12:26 PM »
You really make me question your honesty with this remark. You had to have an aneurism or hit your head to forget Trump didn't just leave office. He called state leaders, election officials, telling them to find the votes needed to show he won. He filed frivolous lawsuits based on lies. You CAN'T get more devious than that unless you were to rile up a crowd and send them marching towards congress after he encouraged supporters to descend on the Capitol grounds and "cheer" on senators who would break laws governing U.S. elections.

Either you were being facetious or there is an honesty issue here.

I'm thinking you are at a point where you are being intellectually dishonest. as Lurker had shown in the above posts you were wrong. Admitting you were wrong is not a sign of weakness outside of Trumps world.. maybe it's time you come clean?

Go sit down and drink a beer.  Then go to sleep.  You don't want any of this smoke.  When I get the time I might come back educate you.  Again.   :) 

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15020
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1296 on: July 19, 2023, 08:18:15 PM »
Go sit down and drink a beer.  Then go to sleep.  You don't want any of this smoke.  When I get the time I might come back educate you.  Again.   :)

I'll have whatever you're smoking.. seems pretty potent

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1297 on: July 19, 2023, 08:40:30 PM »
So you refuse to try and think independently about this.  You are confusing individuals and entities with the POTUS.  No other person in the country has the classification and declassification power held by the POTUS.  What specific entity requires that the POTUS follow a certain process to declassify classified info?  And what is that specific process that the POTUS must follow?

I refuse to think Trumptarian.  I prefer to think along the lines of facts.

The question remains.  If there was no declassification process then why hasn't his legal counsel made that argument?  Pretty much for the same reason that they haven't made the argument that the feds planted evidence there.  Because it's bullshit.

But don't worry.  Be patient.  It's going to come out in the trial.   :)

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31160
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1298 on: July 19, 2023, 08:42:23 PM »
You really make me question your honesty with this remark. You had to have an aneurism or hit your head to forget Trump didn't just leave office. He called state leaders, election officials, telling them to find the votes needed to show he won. He filed frivolous lawsuits based on lies. You CAN'T get more devious than that unless you were to rile up a crowd and send them marching towards congress after he encouraged supporters to descend on the Capitol grounds and "cheer" on senators who would break laws governing U.S. elections.

Either you were being facetious or there is an honesty issue here.

I'm thinking you are at a point where you are being intellectually dishonest. as Lurker had shown in the above posts you were wrong. Admitting you were wrong is not a sign of weakness outside of Trumps world.. maybe it's time you come clean?

Reality sort of sucks for the Trump supporters.

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15020
Re: +1 to the Jan 6 count
« Reply #1299 on: July 19, 2023, 08:48:35 PM »
Reality sort of sucks for the Trump supporters.
I guess the only way to survive at this point is disassociate yourself from reality. Find 2 or 3 people likeminded folks and argue nonsense on a forum. Throw out "debunked" ,  "Bidens Administration" and "Democrats are after Trump" and ignore the mounting evidence in courts and special prosecutors.