Trump's Russian Collusion

[old salt]

Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

I have a question: do you think the President or others in the Executive office can classify crimes? Someone breaks the law, Barr or Trump deems the information about these crimes classified, and 'eyes only"....and that's the end of it?

.. The FBI & members of Congress have security clearances.

[MDlaxfan76]

Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

I have a question: do you think the President or others in the Executive office can classify crimes? Someone breaks the law, Barr or Trump deems the information about these crimes classified, and 'eyes only"....and that's the end of it?

.. The FBI & members of Congress have security clearances.

Access to this special file???

[old salt]

Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

I have a question: do you think the President or others in the Executive office can classify crimes? Someone breaks the law, Barr or Trump deems the information about these crimes classified, and 'eyes only"....and that's the end of it?

.. The FBI & members of Congress have security clearances.

Access to this special file???

They got it for this call as soon as they asked for it.

[a fan]

.. The FBI & members of Congress have security clearances.

I understand that. That doesn't mean that they actually have access to information classified by the White Houses.


And that doesn't answer my question. Do you think the President or others in the Executive office can classify crimes? Someone breaks the law, Barr or Trump deems the information about these crimes classified, and 'eyes only"....and that's the end of it?

[old salt]

.. The FBI & members of Congress have security clearances.

I understand that. That doesn't mean that they actually have access to information classified by the White Houses.


And that doesn't answer my question. Do you think the President or others in the Executive office can classify crimes? Someone breaks the law, Barr or Trump deems the information about these crimes classified, and 'eyes only"....and that's the end of it?

That's what the whistleblower process is for. You're seeing it play out now.

[a fan]

Not quite the answer, but close enough.

You're saying no. And the whistleblower prevents the classification of what might be a crime. Both scary and reassuring all at once.

Now you know why I'm livid about how the whistleblower was and is being treated.

[MDlaxfan76]

Not quite the answer, but close enough.

You're saying no. And the whistleblower prevents the classification of what might be a crime. Both scary and reassuring all at once.

Now you know why I'm livid about how the whistleblower was and is being treated.

Including today by Trump.
And Kellyanne.

[tech37]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

You're right mdlax, my bad... I had to run to meet friends. We hiked a mountain in the ADKs today...what did you do?

Nothing so fun as that. Helped make some chicken chili for a group of HBS women gathering at our place for lunch with my wife, made a fire, transplanted some pots, prepared a PPT presentation for next week, took a 45 minute Peloton ride...gonna watch the Ravens and Pats tonight.

Not a bad day, but rather been hiking the Adirondacks!

Did I miss it or have you answered the question?
It's actually a pretty easy one.

I did answer it...a couple weeks ago...no one cared then obviously

Sounds like a nice day

It was fine.
Wife appreciate me. Every day is a new opportunity to 'close the deal'...'always be closing'.

But come on, help us out.
Please answer the question. It's a really, really easy one.

good lord...what is the silly question again? That discussion was swallowed in the vortex a week or so ago. And I'll answer your question with a question...why is my opinion so important to you?

[ggait]

old salt wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:55 pm
Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Criminal law isn't that complicated either. Here's why you are 360 degrees of wrong when it comes to the law.

To make the point, let's say for discussion that on the call Trump asked Zelensky for a 1% kickback on the $400 million instead of Biden dirt. So the Ukes have to wire $4 million to Trump's account at the Bank of Cyprus or no USA aid.

Hill, Taylor, Bolton, Vindman all race to the WH, DOS, NSC lawyer offices with their hair on fire. In response to the alarms, the two NSC lawyers and NSC Morrison (law school grad but not currently employed as a lawyer) decide to (i) scrub a few salacious words from the telcon summary, (ii) tell everyone to shut up and not speak about the incident, and (iii) deep six the telcon summary onto the code word super secret server. And then they continue to go about their business and take no further action.

Of course those NSC guys are at risk of criminal liability!!!

As always, whether they actually have criminal liability depends on the prove-able facts and prove-able intent. For example, Morrison (since he's not really acting as a lawyer) could defend himself by saying he reported it up the chain and the real lawyers (not him as fake lawyer) were the ones who decided not to take any action and concluded Trump's action were lawful.

The NSC lawyers perhaps could defend by saying the deep six to the secret server was to make sure the evidence was preserved since it was at risk of being destroyed.

Salty -- your purported legal analysis just totally sucks. Just because I have a valid legal license to drive a car or own a gun does not mean that it is legal for me to use my car or gun to kill someone. Similarly, using classification to hide or suppress evidence can totally be a crime. Sheesh!!!

[old salt]

old salt wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:55 pm
Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Criminal law isn't that complicated either. Here's why you are 360 degrees of wrong when it comes to the law.

To make the point, let's say for discussion that on the call Trump asked Zelensky for a 1% kickback on the $400 million instead of Biden dirt. So the Ukes have to wire $4 million to Trump's account at the Bank of Cyprus or no USA aid.

Hill, Taylor, Bolton, Vindman all race to the WH, DOS, NSC lawyer offices with their hair on fire. In response to the alarms, the two NSC lawyers and NSC Morrison (law school grad but not currently employed as a lawyer) decide to (i) scrub a few salacious words from the telcon summary, (ii) tell everyone to shut up and not speak about the incident, and (iii) deep six the telcon summary onto the code word super secret server. And then they continue to go about their business and take no further action.

Of course those NSC guys are at risk of criminal liability!!!

As always, whether they actually have criminal liability depends on the prove-able facts and prove-able intent. For example, Morrison (since he's not really acting as a lawyer) could defend himself by saying he reported it up the chain and the real lawyers (not him as fake lawyer) were the ones who decided not to take any action and concluded Trump's action were lawful.

The NSC lawyers perhaps could defend by saying the deep six to the secret server was to make sure the evidence was preserved since it was at risk of being destroyed.

Salty -- your purported legal analysis just totally sucks. Just because I have a valid legal license to drive a car or own a gun does not mean that it is legal for me to use my car or gun to kill someone. Similarly, using classification to hide or suppress evidence can totally be a crime. Sheesh!!!

You are ignoring the fact that several of the President's previous ph calls with foreign leaders were classified & stored the same way.
Classification to protect classified info from being leaked does not automatically mean it's being done as a cover up for criminal activity or for political reasons. You're adapting the MSM's premise that the leaking of classified info is a right.

There are legit, noncriminal reasons to classify & store these ph call records this way.
You don't need to conjure up outlandish hypotheticals like kickbacks ("to make the point") to hype anything into a crime.
We have a transcript of the call & the WB's hearsay account. The facts don't vary substantially.
Instead of making stuff up about what witnesses did & why, show us the complete transcripts of their testimony before you start alleging criminal activity.

[ABV 8.3%]

.. The FBI & members of Congress have security clearances.

I understand that. That doesn't mean that they actually have access to information classified by the White Houses.


And that doesn't answer my question. Do you think the President or others in the Executive office can classify crimes? Someone breaks the law, Barr or Trump deems the information about these crimes classified, and 'eyes only"....and that's the end of it?

Just figuring this stuff out AFAN

Why else does the killing machine industry spend close to a billion dollars to elect the executive branch puppets ?

[ABV 8.3%]

Speaking of impeachment........the greatest distraction evah invented.

Clinton masked his criminal/treasoneous China-satellite details access by the IS IS, " I did not have sexual relations......." All contrived and welcomed by the clinton gang.

I bet you all remember monica lewinski.........the Cox report.....or names involved with one of the WORST scandals to happen in the last 50 years.....
____________________

This article summs it up nicely

https://www.wired.com/1998/06/us-awash- ... e-scandal/

The administration says it did nothing wrong – or even out of the ordinary – when it waived sanctions against China and approved the launch this year of a communications satellite made by Loral Space and Communications Ltd.

The fact that Loral's president was the single biggest donor to Democratic candidates in the last election cycle had no bearing on the decision, the White House contends, nor did a US$100,000 campaign donation that reportedly originated with a Chinese general's daughter who used to run a satellite-launching business.



Clinton and the DNC know ALL about foreign influences on elections..........all about it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Speaking of impeachment........the greatest distraction evah invented.

Clinton masked his criminal/treasoneous China-satellite details access by the IS IS, " I did not have sexual relations......." All contrived and welcomed by the clinton gang.

I bet you all remember monica lewinski.........the Cox report.....or names involved with one of the WORST scandals to happen in the last 50 years.....
____________________

This article summs it up nicely

https://www.wired.com/1998/06/us-awash- ... e-scandal/

The administration says it did nothing wrong – or even out of the ordinary – when it waived sanctions against China and approved the launch this year of a communications satellite made by Loral Space and Communications Ltd.

The fact that Loral's president was the single biggest donor to Democratic candidates in the last election cycle had no bearing on the decision, the White House contends, nor did a US$100,000 campaign donation that reportedly originated with a Chinese general's daughter who used to run a satellite-launching business.



Clinton and the DNC know ALL about foreign influences on elections..........all about it.

What was the result of the investigation? Who went to jail? I can’t remember.

[Brooklyn]

Impeach, remove, and lock him up!

[MDlaxfan76]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?

You're right mdlax, my bad... I had to run to meet friends. We hiked a mountain in the ADKs today...what did you do?

Nothing so fun as that. Helped make some chicken chili for a group of HBS women gathering at our place for lunch with my wife, made a fire, transplanted some pots, prepared a PPT presentation for next week, took a 45 minute Peloton ride...gonna watch the Ravens and Pats tonight.

Not a bad day, but rather been hiking the Adirondacks!

Did I miss it or have you answered the question?
It's actually a pretty easy one.

I did answer it...a couple weeks ago...no one cared then obviously

Sounds like a nice day

It was fine.
Wife appreciate me. Every day is a new opportunity to 'close the deal'...'always be closing'.

But come on, help us out.
Please answer the question. It's a really, really easy one.

good lord...what is the silly question again? That discussion was swallowed in the vortex a week or so ago. And I'll answer your question with a question...why is my opinion so important to you?

Sorry, it's literally at the beginning of this thread.

Seacoaster asked:

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

He then made sure to explain the question in more localized terms to illustrate such examples.

I might have asked it differently, more directly on point about a foreign entity, national security, and election law, but seacoaster boiled it down to a straightforward political corruption/abuse of power issue.

It's a pretty easy question.

Why were you asked?
Because a lot of your comments appeared to suggest you might actually answer quite differently than most of us would.
But seacoaster gave you the opportunity to clarify.

so, yes or no?

[MDlaxfan76]

old salt wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:55 pm
Illegai ? No. -- Executive authority, not underlying law, governs this level of the classification process.

The purpose of classification is to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information which could be damaging to national security.
The concept is not that complicated.

Criminal law isn't that complicated either. Here's why you are 360 degrees of wrong when it comes to the law.

To make the point, let's say for discussion that on the call Trump asked Zelensky for a 1% kickback on the $400 million instead of Biden dirt. So the Ukes have to wire $4 million to Trump's account at the Bank of Cyprus or no USA aid.

Hill, Taylor, Bolton, Vindman all race to the WH, DOS, NSC lawyer offices with their hair on fire. In response to the alarms, the two NSC lawyers and NSC Morrison (law school grad but not currently employed as a lawyer) decide to (i) scrub a few salacious words from the telcon summary, (ii) tell everyone to shut up and not speak about the incident, and (iii) deep six the telcon summary onto the code word super secret server. And then they continue to go about their business and take no further action.

Of course those NSC guys are at risk of criminal liability!!!

As always, whether they actually have criminal liability depends on the prove-able facts and prove-able intent. For example, Morrison (since he's not really acting as a lawyer) could defend himself by saying he reported it up the chain and the real lawyers (not him as fake lawyer) were the ones who decided not to take any action and concluded Trump's action were lawful.

The NSC lawyers perhaps could defend by saying the deep six to the secret server was to make sure the evidence was preserved since it was at risk of being destroyed.

Salty -- your purported legal analysis just totally sucks. Just because I have a valid legal license to drive a car or own a gun does not mean that it is legal for me to use my car or gun to kill someone. Similarly, using classification to hide or suppress evidence can totally be a crime. Sheesh!!!

You are ignoring the fact that several of the President's previous ph calls with foreign leaders were classified & stored the same way.
Classification to protect classified info from being leaked does not automatically mean it's being done as a cover up for criminal activity or for political reasons. You're adapting the MSM's premise that the leaking of classified info is a right.

There are legit, noncriminal reasons to classify & store these ph call records this way.
You don't need to conjure up outlandish hypotheticals like kickbacks ("to make the point") to hype anything into a crime.
We have a transcript of the call & the WB's hearsay account. The facts don't vary substantially.
Instead of making stuff up about what witnesses did & why, show us the complete transcripts of their testimony before you start alleging criminal activity.

Which is why intent matters.

This discussion began with you challenging ggait's speculation as to why Morrison said he didn't, at the time, see the Trump call and pressure on Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and the Dems as something "illegal". Had he admitted that he'd had that concern, then he may have legal liability for any participation he had in any subsequent cover-up.

We agree that actions may or may not be criminal, depending upon what was intended by them...

And, more specifically, the point is that if 'classification' is being used to cover-up a crime, that 'classification' act is itself also a crime.

The question I have for you, Salty, is whether you are actually dense as a rock or just pretending? Sorry if that sounds a bit aggressive, but this has been explained very, very clearly.

[ABV 8.3%]

Speaking of impeachment........the greatest distraction evah invented.

Clinton masked his criminal/treasoneous China-satellite details access by the IS IS, " I did not have sexual relations......." All contrived and welcomed by the clinton gang.

I bet you all remember monica lewinski.........the Cox report.....or names involved with one of the WORST scandals to happen in the last 50 years.....
____________________

This article summs it up nicely

https://www.wired.com/1998/06/us-awash- ... e-scandal/

The administration says it did nothing wrong – or even out of the ordinary – when it waived sanctions against China and approved the launch this year of a communications satellite made by Loral Space and Communications Ltd.

The fact that Loral's president was the single biggest donor to Democratic candidates in the last election cycle had no bearing on the decision, the White House contends, nor did a US$100,000 campaign donation that reportedly originated with a Chinese general's daughter who used to run a satellite-launching business.



Clinton and the DNC know ALL about foreign influences on elections..........all about it.

What was the result of the investigation? Who went to jail? I can’t remember.

To me...perhaps only me.....it's obvious to look for and ask : what bills were passed.....WHO got our tax dollars......during the Whitewater-blow cigar job impeachment soap operahs. Certainly, the Clinton-China-Election help-illegal FUNd raising, etc, was NOT 24/7 front page news before the internet era.........instead....another 145 BILLION will be added to the NDAA bill next week.

but, but.......trump asks for a favor. First time in politics. No audio of JFK grovellling at Daly's feet to curry favor for votes....quid pro quinn the eskimo

[Typical Lax Dad]

Speaking of impeachment........the greatest distraction evah invented.

Clinton masked his criminal/treasoneous China-satellite details access by the IS IS, " I did not have sexual relations......." All contrived and welcomed by the clinton gang.

I bet you all remember monica lewinski.........the Cox report.....or names involved with one of the WORST scandals to happen in the last 50 years.....
____________________

This article summs it up nicely

https://www.wired.com/1998/06/us-awash- ... e-scandal/

The administration says it did nothing wrong – or even out of the ordinary – when it waived sanctions against China and approved the launch this year of a communications satellite made by Loral Space and Communications Ltd.

The fact that Loral's president was the single biggest donor to Democratic candidates in the last election cycle had no bearing on the decision, the White House contends, nor did a US$100,000 campaign donation that reportedly originated with a Chinese general's daughter who used to run a satellite-launching business.



Clinton and the DNC know ALL about foreign influences on elections..........all about it.

What was the result of the investigation? Who went to jail? I can’t remember.

To me...perhaps only me.....it's obvious to look for and ask : what bills were passed.....WHO got our tax dollars......during the Whitewater-blow cigar job impeachment soap operahs. Certainly, the Clinton-China-Election help-illegal FUNd raising, etc, was NOT 24/7 front page news before the internet era.........instead....another 145 BILLION will be added to the NDAA bill next week.

but, but.......trump asks for a favor. First time in politics. No audio of JFK grovellling at Daly's feet to curry favor for votes....quid pro quinn the eskimo

Let me know who held up congressional money and meeting with the POTUS until the ally read a prepared statement by the administration announcing a fake investigation into a political rival.

[old salt]

And, more specifically, the point is that if 'classification' is being used to cover-up a crime, that 'classification' act is itself also a crime.

The question I have for you, Salty, is whether you are actually dense as a rock or just pretending? Sorry if that sounds a bit aggressive, but this has been explained very, very clearly.

...except for the fact that all ph calls between POTUS & foreign leaders are automatically classified, whether or not the conversation can be hyped into a supposed cover up of some arguable crime. ...all based on leaks of a partisan presumption of criminal activity, based upon a small selective portion of witness testimony.
Who's being dense ? ..

[Typical Lax Dad]

And, more specifically, the point is that if 'classification' is being used to cover-up a crime, that 'classification' act is itself also a crime.

The question I have for you, Salty, is whether you are actually dense as a rock or just pretending? Sorry if that sounds a bit aggressive, but this has been explained very, very clearly.

...except for the fact that all ph calls between POTUS & foreign leaders are automatically classified, whether or not the conversation can be hyped into a supposed cover up of some arguable crime. ...all based on leaks of a partisan presumption of criminal activity, based upon a small selective portion of witness testimony.
Who's being dense ? ..

Why make it even more classified then?