(01-15-2023 04:36 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-15-2023 04:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-15-2023 02:51 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-15-2023 11:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-15-2023 11:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  18 USC 793 would bar the copying. Again, 793 does not require 'classified information' for a violation.

You would be correct for a violation of 798. But 793 is separate and apart from 798.

aw shite, let's have some fonzies with 18 USC 793

Quote:(a)Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, ...........................................information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b)Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense;

anyone wanna take a stab at what hasn't been released to date ... anyone notice certain 'thingys' ... no hints this time (fk it, ya got a freebie with "released to date")...

fk the rest of the legalese mumbo jumbo ... the above is enough...

the argument is simple ... this should be good...

#muhTurn

since everyone is continually playing dodgeball, let's address the obvious in tang's original posit in 18 USC 793...

1. it's obvious the italicized applies to Biden & son's 'case' based on all the intel the public now knows ... from Burisma --->>> Hunter's laptop --->>> muh 'big guy' --->>> 6 years ... yet, there's zero evidence any of said documents related to defense of the nation in DJT's case ... and why is that ... b/c nothing has been released other than a shiteload of 'muh spin + politics that stir the pot'..

2. to the bold text: if the President has knowledge of all classified docs , does that not indicate sect b) is moot unless conspiracy/treasonous?

regardless, not one fk'n soul knows what's in these docs ... all this bs is nothing more than "ifs" ... there's a reason they'll never release any content in scope in either scenario...

now, I'mma gonna go back to laughing at all this stupid shite...

Also --

Also, there is a danger of 798. While trump has said boldly and proudly that he 'declassified all of it', the procedure works against him.

First, and as the 11th Circ has noted, the DOJ has already shown a prima facie case that the documents are classified.

Trump then has to assert an affirmative defense -- that he declassified them. If Trump says he declassified them, he has to show *some* proof of that action. Thus, the comments 'declassify by Jedi Mind meld' wont work -- there is no proof, no objective evidence that he did.

It may be very well that the President has that power to 'declassify by only thinking about it'. The problem for Trump is that for that to be a valid legal defense, there must some some evidence of that actually happening. FoSizzles comments on the process now are shown to ahve a very valid rationale for occurring.

If Trump is going to use a 'I declassified them' -- then his attorneys better start to find and present *some* proof to show that aside from Trump's own say so.

If Trump has that power its up to the government to prove he didn't. A ruling doesn't prove that. Why would he have to say it to anyone....but himself? Can the government prove he didn't? No they can't, not if he has that power to just "say" these are declassified.

Assuming the bold the government would need a nextx that it must be said or written to another person. While I did not bookmark it I did a search with the time frame 2012-2016 you know before any of this....

I did read one article that if a President wanted something declassified he has sole judgement on doing just that. He could say or show any document and no one could stop him from doing just that. In that context saying it to himself would fit. But that was only a article so maybe that person was wrong.

hence, argument #2

it's fair to state 'we don't know what is contained in any docs held by DJT or Biden' (which renders any 'verdict by discussion', moot at this point ... but it can be fonzies playing Perry Mason on a bbs)

the only remaining question in my mind (other than studying 798) is how it all plays out downstream ... there's too many scenarios in the land-o-wicked for nuts zongo to make that prediction at this point....