- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/10/23 at 8:53 am to Strannix
When they have to look for a cocktail of statutes to indict OMB then it’s all about disparaging the man as much as they can. They have tried this over and over since 2015.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 8:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If he's found guilty is he going to become Escobar and get "jailed" at his compound?
Your assumption is if convicted he will definitely be sentenced to prison? Your question implies mocking tone to the idea that house arrest or other non-jail outcomes are a possible result. Are there minimum sentencing guidelines in this unprecedented indictment with no case law?
Posted on 6/10/23 at 8:56 am to SlowFlowPro
You really think they stored nuclear secrets in the Oval Office and WH living quarters? Lol
Ask yourself what’s more likely here.
Yet another, wild baseless political snipe hunt or Trump stealing nuke codes?
Ask yourself what’s more likely here.
Yet another, wild baseless political snipe hunt or Trump stealing nuke codes?
Posted on 6/10/23 at 8:58 am to GRTiger
They’ll try. This is about optics not justice
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:02 am to GRTiger
quote:
Your assumption is if convicted he will definitely be sentenced to prison?
In the federal system? On these charges? Yes.
quote:
Are there minimum sentencing guidelines
The federal sentencing guidelines exist. You can take a look at them as they'd apply here.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:11 am to Diseasefreeforall
quote:In terms of "defense secrets," you seem to have left out the term "alleged."
And whether the he lawfully or unlawfully possessed the defense secrets he showed to unauthorized people doesn't matter
I'm sure that was an oversight.
quote:Whooopsi!
one of the people he showed the secret stuff was a writer
You did it again.
I'm sure you meant "allegedly showed."
You really should be more careful with your wording though.
Otherwise, folks might assume the documents you refer to are actually proven to exist, and the writer is actually proven to have read them.
I know it's really hard to believe, but the press and DOJ might just be brazenly lying about Trump. IIRC, they have done that once or twice. Is that your recollection as well?
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:19 am to Strannix
quote:
Except under the PRA he was showing them a personal record. I see logic isnt your strong suit. Both scenarios cannot exist simultaneously. Either it’s a classified document owned by the government or Trump's personal property.
Fair enough.
Just so we understand our common ground, you concede that Trump actually did every act that is alleged. So if we look solely at the actions alleged, this is not a hoax or a made up set of actions. What you are asserting is that those acts did not violate the criminal law.
I appreciate your candor. As for whether the acts violate the criminal law, we will just have to wait and see. I don’t pretend to know the final answer to this.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:23 am to Strannix
I don’t think you’re familiar with all of the
applicable statutes( or the scope of the PRA). I don’t think I’d rely on Trump for his legal analysis.
applicable statutes( or the scope of the PRA). I don’t think I’d rely on Trump for his legal analysis.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
He was President of the United States. You don't send him to "jail" jail. You place him under house arrest and severely curtail his movements and means of communication. You don't send him to Leavenworth or Atlanta, et al
At least they better not if convicted.
It would be the most desired SS detail however
At least they better not if convicted.
It would be the most desired SS detail however
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:24 am to cajunangelle
The PRA is pretty short. Give it a read. It applies to the President but it doesn't help him in this case. The records were clearly not personal records.
LINK
2201...
(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—
§2202. Ownership of Presidential records
The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
LINK
2201...
(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion therof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—
§2202. Ownership of Presidential records
The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Just like they said these indictments were myths, until they weren't. Or how the NY indictments were myths, until they weren't. Patriots love consuming echo chamber content and then screaming about some sort of conspiracy when the bad information they relied on from grifters is exposed as bad information. A meme has developed over 12 hours or sow here some people are just linking a thread with 1 tweet from a clearly non-objective source as some sort of gotcha, like his tweet is a Supreme Court case
You're just a batshit loon at this point.
Eta more context.
You search out data points from the dumbest and least significant idiots on this board so you can construct a narrative and framework to classify the majority of the board. You do this to cope with the fact the institutions around which you've built your life are trash.
You're guilty of the same confirmation bias you love to pin on others. You're not clever or enlightened. You're just like the people you use to marginalize people better than you.
Do better.
This post was edited on 6/10/23 at 9:41 am
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:27 am to VOR
quote:
VOR
First buckeye_vol now VOR.
The absolute state of this board with loons showing their faces all of a sudden.
This post was edited on 6/10/23 at 9:32 am
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
you'll claim the judges were compromised
Or they are just trash, which seems to be the case most of the time.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
LOL. Trump in jail?
This is why Democrats are most all on depression medication. You frickers believe anything DU or Daily Kos says
This is why Democrats are most all on depression medication. You frickers believe anything DU or Daily Kos says
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:32 am to TrueTiger
quote:
a technical reading of a complex law that wasn't even meant for a situation like this.
/\ THIS /\ is where the tyrannical admins get their power. There are enough laws on the books that anyone can be found guilty of some interpretation of some of them - and especially if you hang the magical word "conspiracy" to them.
I wouldn't be surprised if you could be arrested on suspicion of "conspiracy to jaywalk" if the local sheriff wanted to harass you.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 9:44 am to Strannix
quote:
Except under the PRA he was showing them a personal record. I see logic isnt your strong suit.
Clearly reading isn't yours...
quote:
The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
This post was edited on 6/10/23 at 9:45 am
Posted on 6/10/23 at 10:09 am to Diseasefreeforall
quote:in federal law when there are 2 statues in conflict it's always the more specific one that is applied. In this case the PRA is the more specific statue than the espionage act.
They've still got him under 18 U.S.C. 793(e). And whether the he lawfully or unlawfully possessed the defense secrets he showed to unauthorized people doesn't matter as 793(d) covers lawful possession.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 10:14 am to VOR
quote:
VOR
What!
Dude we all thought you were…gone.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 10:20 am to Fun Bunch
It’s like magic. I have missed you guys. I admit I lost some self-control before I took a vacation. I’m all better now, though. There was a time when I was considered to be okay, in spite of some disagreements.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News