#BYEDON 2020 - The End Better Fucking Be Near

Status
Not open for further replies.

Veritable Quandry

Specializing in derails and train wrecks.
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
5,303
Location
Columbus, OH
SL Rez
2010
Joined SLU
20something
SLU Posts
42


That pretty much kills the whole "Trump declassified these documents"-defense.

He can't on one hand have his lawyers sign a document that says "yes, these are classified documents and we returned them all" and on the other hand claim that those aren't classified documents, and it's okay for him to have them.
I have been wondering if his attorneys might have been the mole. If they knew where the documents were and couldn't convince their client to turn them over they would have a duty to inform the court or law enforcement to avoid being part of a criminal conspiracy. On the other hand he hires idiots for lawyers so maybe not.
 

Zaida Gearbox

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
1,375
1L$ Donald Jr. A while ago I read something about Trump instructing someone that if one of his kids had to go to jail because of his misdeeds that this person had to maek sure it was Donald Jr.

Isn't violations of the Espionage Act what they executed the Rosenbergs for?
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Aribeth Zelin

Rose Karuna

Childless Crazy Cat Lady
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
2,454
Location
Central Florida
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
2007
1L$ Donald Jr. A while ago I read something about Trump instructing someone that if one of his kids had to go to jail because of his misdeeds that this person had to maek sure it was Donald Jr.

Isn't violations of the Espionage Act what they executed the Rosenbergs for?
Yes, with FAR less evidence than they probably have on Trump at this point.


From Wikipedia:
The Espionage Act of 1917 is a United States federal law enacted on June 15, 1917, shortly after the United States entered World War I. It has been amended numerous times over the years. It was originally found in Title 50 of the U.S. Code (War & National Defense) but is now found under Title 18 (Crime & Criminal Procedure). Specifically, it is 18 U.S.C. ch. 37 (18 U.S.C. § 792 et seq.)

It was intended to prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment, to prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of United States enemies during wartime. In 1919, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled through Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the freedom of speech of those convicted under its provisions. The constitutionality of the law, its relationship to free speech, and the meaning of its language have been contested in court ever since.

Among those charged with offenses under the Act are German-American socialist congressman and newspaper editor Victor L. Berger, labor leader and five-time Socialist Party of America candidate, Eugene V. Debs, anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, former Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society president Joseph Franklin Rutherford, communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Cablegate whistleblower Chelsea Manning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Defense Intelligence Agency employee Henry Kyle Frese, and National Security Agency (NSA) contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden. Rutherford's conviction was overturned on appeal.[1] Although the most controversial sections of the Act, a set of amendments commonly called the Sedition Act of 1918, were repealed on December 13, 1920, the original Espionage Act was left intact.[2] In 1921, Woodrow Wilson offered clemency to most of those convicted under the Sedition and Espionage Acts and the Supreme Court eventually overturned all of its decisions related with them.[3]
After reading the act, I'm not so sure it shouldn't be overturned. It seems like it's used more to prosecute whistleblowers than it is to prosecute traitors. OTOH, I think they can only prosecute for treason if we are at war.
 

Lexxi

meow
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
1,333
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
12-14-2007
SLU Posts
6381
Yes, with FAR less evidence than they probably have on Trump at this point.


From Wikipedia:

After reading the act, I'm not so sure it shouldn't be overturned. It seems like it's used more to prosecute whistleblowers than it is to prosecute traitors. OTOH, I think they can only prosecute for treason if we are at war.
USA still technically at war with North Korea.
The war ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty, meaning U.S.-led U.N. forces are still technically at war with North Korea.

South Korea: End to Korean War agreed to in principle
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Zaida Gearbox

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,171
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
Now the Trumpanzees want to repeal the Espionage Act. I can't possibly imagine why!

Fuck these criminals and traitors. He/they keep repeatedly violating the law and when caught they want to get rid of the law they broke. They openly flaunt subpoenas, they do not show up when called to testify. They are supposedly the "law and order"' party, telling black people that they would not get murdered by the police if only they would follow the law, be obsequious to the officer when pulled over, etc...

Trump deserves to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, any and all laws he has broken, including the Espionage Act and yes, ultimately face the death penalty, if an when found guilty of violating it. If this criminal sold nuclear secrets to the Saudis, at some point within the next 20 years or so, we could be facing a major city being bombed by a nuclear weapon. I'm not kidding.

The president, ex-president is not above the fucking law. I know he was when he was president as he filled offices with cronies, but he is not king. These traitors, every one of them need to be stopped before they reinstall him or another like him and then they will be truly above the law.
 

Zaida Gearbox

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
1,375
I read on Reddit (so consider the source) that they have surveillance video of the building where all this stuff was, so they know who all went in and out of that building, and they're also dusting for finger prints on the documents. Though I always thought lifting finger prints from paper wasn't easy.

And yeah - I really can't believe some of my Trump supporting friends. I guess Trump was right when he said he could blow someone away in a busy Manhattan street in broad daylight and these dumb fucks would still support him.
 

Katheryne Helendale

🐱 Kitty Queen 🐱
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
10,441
Location
Right... Behind... You...
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
October 2009
SLU Posts
65534
After reading the act, I'm not so sure it shouldn't be overturned. It seems like it's used more to prosecute whistleblowers than it is to prosecute traitors. OTOH, I think they can only prosecute for treason if we are at war.
I don't completely disagree, having now read the act myself. But It's the best tool we have right now to hold people like Trump accountable for taking carte blanche with our national secrets as if they were trading cards for personal favors.
 

Sid

Lord of the plywood cubes.
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
7,013
Outsiders question:
Is it possible for Trump to be re-elected president of the USA when in jail, or while prosecuted for a major crime?
 

Katheryne Helendale

🐱 Kitty Queen 🐱
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
10,441
Location
Right... Behind... You...
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
October 2009
SLU Posts
65534
Outsiders question:
Is it possible for Trump to be re-elected president of the USA when in jail, or while prosecuted for a major crime?
There's no provision in the Constitution that would specifically prevent or prohibit it. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is about as close as it gets.
 
  • 1Agree
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Govi and Sid

Soen Eber

Vatican mole
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,955
It might be up to the Senate. At a certain level the American government was designed to be a bit of a "club" in a way, where "gentlemen" decided things "in their own way" when not explicitly instructed or denied by law. Even an established precedant could be regarded as merely a convenience or a hindrance.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Sid

Dakota Tebaldi

Well-known member
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
9,776
Location
Ohio
Joined SLU
02-22-2008
SLU Posts
16791
While Constitutionally there's no prohibition on a convicted criminal being elected president, I think a few states have rules against
putting felons on their ballots. I could be wrong though, and even if I'm right I'm not sure whether for instance a write-in candidate who's a felon could still technically win there.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Sid

Veritable Quandry

Specializing in derails and train wrecks.
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
5,303
Location
Columbus, OH
SL Rez
2010
Joined SLU
20something
SLU Posts
42
State laws can not add requirements that are not in the Constitution. Technically the candidates for President are not even on the ballots. We vote for slates of Electors nominated by each party who then vote for the party's candidate. The Supreme Court has ruled in cases involving term limits for Congress that qualifications for Federal office are not up to the states.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
6,769
Location
NJ suburb of Philadelphia
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
Factcheck.org had this to say about it (article is dated though, 2008).

 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Sid
Status
Not open for further replies.