• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How long before Trump is arrested?

How long before Trump is arrested

  • Total voters
    90
ClaraD said:
If they were held at his residence, yes he stole them. The documents belong to the federal government, not Trump. We know he possessed them, because there were in fact government documents seized at his residence.
Click to expand...
In addition his lawyers back in June denied that any classified documents were at Mar el Lago. They lied because the jackass either lied to them or because the lie as much as their boss.
It’s entirely possible that the javkass made copies of these classified documents and could sell them to the Russians-who he is known to boot lick.
 
Ethel2 said:
In addition his lawyers back in June denied that any classified documents were at Mar el Lago. They lied because the jackass either lied to them or because the lie as much as their boss.
It’s entirely possible that the javkass made copies of these classified documents and could sell them to the Russians-who he is known to boot lick.
Click to expand...
Ah-ha! Russia russia russia! Well where did Brandon go now? You're done! Fallacy strawman
 
BahamaBob said:
It sure don't take much to lather up a bunch of tards. All you have to do is mention Trump and they go into a frenzy.

Clue, Hillary had far more of the same type of documents than Trump had and what happened to her?
Click to expand...
Bring me Destiny and/or David Pakman now, I have to debate him, I don't know who I'm responding to
 
Ethel2 said:
Did the jackass not take the side of Putin over his own intelligence network regarding Russia’s interference in the 2016 election (. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-putin-helsinki-summit/index.html) and did the jackass not also refer to Putin as “as a genius” for invading Ukraine or didn’t he?
The jackass is Putin’s bitch.
Click to expand...
I denounce and/or agree with everything you're saying and demand to be heard until I find a mental institution with a spare bed
 
This whole thing will blow up on the libs

0F5FF1A0-6870-450B-B2CC-7E31C510BE28.jpeg
 
Cardinal said:
Uh, no.
Click to expand...
Yes. Having intent when it comes to spying on the U.S. doesn't get you off the hook - it means you've violated section (a) or (b) of 18 U.S. Code § 793. Similarly, having:

being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,...​


doesn't get you off the hook. It means you've violated section (f) of 18 U.S. Code § 793.
 
A former POTUS being arrested would be entirely too precedent setting, not going to happen.
 
cpwill said:
We've already had a SECSTATE go up for it, so, it's not entirely unprecedented, but, yeah, not great, Bob.
Click to expand...
No we didn't. Clinton was being investigated for violation of 18 USC Section 1924. Which is not a part of the Espionage Act. and pertains to officers, contractors, or consultants of the United States. Trump under USC 18 Section 793 which definitely is part of the espionage act. The two cases are really not comparable at all.
 
gbg3 said:
That entire Biden family is a pretty clear example of this. But as yet, the legal institutions are doing a stellar job of sheltering/colluding with them.
Click to expand...
Wow! You are so far off into the weeds on this that I don't think there is any way you will ever find your way back out. There is no comparison whatsoever when it comes to degrees of criminality between the Biden family and the Trump family. Comey hit right on the nose after being part of team that gave President-elect Trump and administrative their intel briefing at Trump Tower when he said Trump's leadership style and persona reminded him of that of a mafia boss.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Yes. Having intent when it comes to spying on the U.S. doesn't get you off the hook - it means you've violated section (a) or (b) of 18 U.S. Code § 793. Similarly, having:

being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,...​


doesn't get you off the hook. It means you've violated section (f) of 18 U.S. Code § 793.
Click to expand...
Sure. All you have to do is just eliminate “intent” from the wording.
 
cpwill said:
James Comey says: Negligence and Extreme Negligence aren't enough, and it isn't enough that they did it while being negligent, and while being extremely careless; if you can't prove deliberate criminal intent, it doesn't violate the statute.

cpwill says: You don't need criminal intent to violate the statute, you only need gross negligence.

18 U.S. Code § 793 says:[/URL]
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. ​

That's why they were careful to say "Extreme Carelessness" and "Negligence" is what they could prove. Mind you, there is no legal standard of extreme carelessness relating to the handling of classified information; [URL=https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey]Peter Strzok apparently made it up when he used it to replace "Gross Negligence", specifically so they could avoid admitting she had broken the law in a way they could charge.


A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey’s description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter. Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey’s earlier draft language describing Clinton’s actions as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,”....​

​

Strzok was also texting his mistress at the time promising he would stop Trump from becoming president. Now, I understand the motivation - I didn't want Trump to be President either. But that's a clear twisting of the legal standard to arrive at the politically preferred conclusion.
Click to expand...
Afraid you wasted a lot typing and pasting for nothing the FBI was applying 18 USC 1924 to Clinton. Not 18 USC section 793.
 
Atomic Kid said:
No we didn't. Clinton was being investigated for violation of 18 USC Section 1924. Which is not a part of the Espionage Act. and pertains to officers, contractors, or consultants of the United States. Trump under USC 18 Section 793 which definitely is part of the espionage act. The two cases are really not comparable at all.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, you are off, here.

The two statutes that criminalize the mishandling of classified information are 18 U.S. Code § 1924 and 18 U.S. Code § 793, which together form key parts of the Espionage Act. The first, § 1924, makes it a misdemeanor for any person entrusted with classified information to intentionally remove that information from its proper place of storage. The second, § 793, makes it a felony for any person entrusted with classified information to remove the information from its proper place of storage with the intent to harm the national interests of the United States. As Comey made clear during his congressional testimony, the investigation’s main focus was on this latter statute.​
 
Atomic Kid said:
Afraid you wasted a lot typing and pasting for nothing the FBI was applying 18 USC 1924 to Clinton. Not 18 USC section 793.
Click to expand...
Answered immediately above.
 
Paul191145 said:
A former POTUS being arrested would be entirely too precedent setting, not going to happen.
Click to expand...


An openly criminal president who is not only contemptuous of the law, but actually wears it with pride and gets a bump in the polls with his supporters every time he does so, has been absolutely unprecedented in all American history. Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures.

Trump's mama should have smacked him upside the head and taught him some manners and respect when she had the chance. She obviously failed. His dad tried by sending him to some military academy. Obviously they all failed too. So now he's a public menace and it's up to society and the law to deal with him.
 
Cardinal said:
Sure. All you have to do is just eliminate “intent” from the wording.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing it. Can you please point me to where in this you find the word "intent"?

through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,​
 
cpwill said:
Maybe I'm missing it. Can you please point me to where in this you find the word "intent"?

through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,​
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ, dude. Do a Ctrl F search. It's in (a) and (b) just as I said.
 
Paul191145 said:
A former POTUS being arrested would be entirely too precedent setting, not going to happen.
Click to expand...
The precedent that was set was a former President committing crimes to an extent that nobody could ignore.
 
Cardinal said:
Jesus Christ, dude. Do a Ctrl F search. It's in (a) and (b) just as I said.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Which are discussing different violations of law. Similarly, if you look up the sections of law on kidnapping and transporting across state lines, you'll find nothing about classified information at all. The absence of classified information doesn't get kidnappers off the hook, because they violated laws against kidnapping, not laws regarding the handling of classified information. Similarly, the lack of spying on the US (a), will not get someone who is grossly negligent (f) off the hook, because that person violated the gross negligence standard, not the laws against spying.
 
cpwill said:
Indeed. Which are discussing different violations of law. Similarly, if you look up the sections of law on kidnapping and transporting across state lines, you'll find nothing about classified information at all.
Click to expand...
Just stop. You cherry picked the parts of 793 that didn’t include “intent.” The director of the FBI refutes you. You’re wrong.
 
Cardinal said:
Just stop. You cherry picked the parts of 793 that didn’t include “intent.” The director of the FBI refutes you. You’re wrong.
Click to expand...

I pointed out the section of law that Hilary violated. You don't like that I was right, and so you are pretending that an entirely different section is somehow controlling. That's a bizarre defense, and one you would (rightly) reject in a hot second if Trump tried it.
 
cpwill said:
I pointed out the section of law that Hilary violated. You don't like that I was right, and so you are pretending that an entirely different section is somehow controlling. That's a bizarre defense, and one you would (rightly) reject in a hot second if Trump tried it.
Click to expand...
Sure. Everybody and everything are wrong but you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom