this doesn't fit on its face, as trump did not "remove such documents or materials without authority"Dantes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:38 pmWhat a load of hair splitting horseshit.Rylinks wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:10 pmif you somehow had boxes of classified information in your house, keeping them would not be a crime any more than the NYT is liable for posessing the pentagon papers
The NYT is shielded by the 1st amendment and you damned well know it. It's still a crime for officers of the united states to mishandle classified documents and the idea that Trump is somehow exempt is farcical. Pretty certain 18 U.S.C. § 1924 applies.
POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
That's true, but the defense would be that he declassified them as he took them home, and it won't be provable that that's not true. The burden of proof would be extraordinary in this caseDantes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:40 pmHe stopped having that right the second he wasn't President.
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Looks like a special counsel just like the one looking into Trump.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
That's a provable claim. So let him prove it.Doug wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:41 pmThat's true, but the defense would be that he declassified them as he took them home, and it won't be provable that that's not true. The burden of proof would be extraordinary in this caseDantes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:40 pmHe stopped having that right the second he wasn't President.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
The way criminal defenses work isn't "Dantes vainly asserts that the burden of proof is with someone else just like he always tries"Dantes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:42 pmThat's a provable claim. So let him prove it.Doug wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:41 pmThat's true, but the defense would be that he declassified them as he took them home, and it won't be provable that that's not true. The burden of proof would be extraordinary in this caseDantes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:40 pmHe stopped having that right the second he wasn't President.
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
If they moved from the Whitehouse to Mar-a-lago during the transition, then he didn't have that authority.Rylinks wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:41 pmthis doesn't fit on its face, as trump did not "remove such documents or materials without authority"Dantes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:38 pmWhat a load of hair splitting horseshit.Rylinks wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:10 pmif you somehow had boxes of classified information in your house, keeping them would not be a crime any more than the NYT is liable for posessing the pentagon papers
The NYT is shielded by the 1st amendment and you damned well know it. It's still a crime for officers of the united states to mishandle classified documents and the idea that Trump is somehow exempt is farcical. Pretty certain 18 U.S.C. § 1924 applies.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
i agree if trump removed documents after he was no longer president he may be liable, which is why i said the relevant time was when they were taken to mar-a-lagoDantes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:43 pmIf they moved from the Whitehouse to Mar-a-lago during the transition, then he didn't have that authority.Rylinks wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:41 pmthis doesn't fit on its face, as trump did not "remove such documents or materials without authority"Dantes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:38 pmWhat a load of hair splitting horseshit.Rylinks wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:10 pmif you somehow had boxes of classified information in your house, keeping them would not be a crime any more than the NYT is liable for posessing the pentagon papers
The NYT is shielded by the 1st amendment and you damned well know it. It's still a crime for officers of the united states to mishandle classified documents and the idea that Trump is somehow exempt is farcical. Pretty certain 18 U.S.C. § 1924 applies.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Actually, here's the current executive order governing the process.
The idea that the President can declassify something at a whim has never actually been tested in the courts. But sure, go on believing that the President can declassify stuff just by thinking about it.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
whether or not the president can declassify stuff just by thinking about it, he is not bound by any specific process
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
the current what order now lol
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Strongly disagree, though I will concede that it should be tested in the courts. The closest I can find was a Federal Appeals court case that offered up this line: “declassification, even by the president, must follow established procedures.” Worth noting contectual differences this was about a FOIA request related to classified material that Trump had tweeted about.
The president defines the process via Executive Order. If Trump wanted to change that process, he could have. He didn't.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Executive Order. Which stays in force until it is rescinded or otherwise modified. Something Trump did not do.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
I mean sure, Trump could have changed the rules on declassification. That is something that was totally in his power. He was too fucking stupid to understand the mechanisms of doing that though.
He is the Chief Executive, and any executive is bound by rules. Regardless that he has the ability to change them. He is not a god damned king, god emperor, or peerless tyrant.
He is the Chief Executive, and any executive is bound by rules. Regardless that he has the ability to change them. He is not a god damned king, god emperor, or peerless tyrant.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
look who thinks President Obama can order President Trump to do things in the future without legislation
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
As different states and municipalities across the country adopt ranked-choice voting, it’s become obvious this mind-boggling election system deserves a new name: rigged-choice voting.
After nearly two months of tabulation, Alameda County, California, — one such ranked-choice voting (RCV) adoptee — announced it got the count wrong for its Nov. 8 election. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the California county admitted it made systemic errors while tabulating ballots. As a result of the snafu, an Oakland School Board race flipped: The top vote-getter (and certified winner) must now hand his board seat over to the third-place finisher.
While gross negligence on the part of some Alameda County election officials is not only probable but likely, RCV’s Byzantine election system must also take the blame. In it, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his voters are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate.
Huh?
That isn't how it works, right
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Who? Because it is certainly not me.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
That's exactly how it works.Doug wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:10 pmAs different states and municipalities across the country adopt ranked-choice voting, it’s become obvious this mind-boggling election system deserves a new name: rigged-choice voting.
After nearly two months of tabulation, Alameda County, California, — one such ranked-choice voting (RCV) adoptee — announced it got the count wrong for its Nov. 8 election. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the California county admitted it made systemic errors while tabulating ballots. As a result of the snafu, an Oakland School Board race flipped: The top vote-getter (and certified winner) must now hand his board seat over to the third-place finisher.
While gross negligence on the part of some Alameda County election officials is not only probable but likely, RCV’s Byzantine election system must also take the blame. In it, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his voters are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate.
Huh?
That isn't how it works, right
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Oh oh they mean if the last-place finisher is eliminated, his voters who had chosen him as their first pick are reallocated to those voters' second choicesDantes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:12 pmThat's exactly how it works.Doug wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:10 pmAs different states and municipalities across the country adopt ranked-choice voting, it’s become obvious this mind-boggling election system deserves a new name: rigged-choice voting.
After nearly two months of tabulation, Alameda County, California, — one such ranked-choice voting (RCV) adoptee — announced it got the count wrong for its Nov. 8 election. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the California county admitted it made systemic errors while tabulating ballots. As a result of the snafu, an Oakland School Board race flipped: The top vote-getter (and certified winner) must now hand his board seat over to the third-place finisher.
While gross negligence on the part of some Alameda County election officials is not only probable but likely, RCV’s Byzantine election system must also take the blame. In it, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his voters are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate.
Huh?
That isn't how it works, right
I think that could have been better written
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
so if Obama decided to reveal classified documents about some CIA program, and did so by going up to a podium and giving a speech about the program where he said he was declassifying documents followed by providing the documents to reporters, this would be a criminal act because he didn't like, sign a new executive order?Dantes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:01 pmStrongly disagree, though I will concede that it should be tested in the courts. The closest I can find was a Federal Appeals court case that offered up this line: “declassification, even by the president, must follow established procedures.” Worth noting contectual differences this was about a FOIA request related to classified material that Trump had tweeted about.
The president defines the process via Executive Order. If Trump wanted to change that process, he could have. He didn't.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
articles like that piss me off. "the people running the election sucked at it and made tons of mistakes. the thing to blame? ranked choice voting"
RCV is more complicated than first-past-the-post but it is really not that complicated; if the election officials suck then get better election officials
RCV is more complicated than first-past-the-post but it is really not that complicated; if the election officials suck then get better election officials
u gotta skate
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
It was very opinionated
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars
http://devilsbiscuit.com/
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Obama wouldn't have done that. And yeah, it would have been a violation of his executive order, not that anyone would have challenged him on that.Rylinks wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:14 pmso if Obama decided to reveal classified documents about some CIA program, and did so by going up to a podium and giving a speech about the program where he said he was declassifying documents followed by providing the documents to reporters, this would be a criminal act because he didn't like, sign a new executive order?Dantes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:01 pmStrongly disagree, though I will concede that it should be tested in the courts. The closest I can find was a Federal Appeals court case that offered up this line: “declassification, even by the president, must follow established procedures.” Worth noting contectual differences this was about a FOIA request related to classified material that Trump had tweeted about.
The president defines the process via Executive Order. If Trump wanted to change that process, he could have. He didn't.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
obama apparently did personally order declassification of a soviet-era intelligence brief. Could Obama be subject to a criminal investigation to determine whether that brief met the criteria for declassification under his executive order?
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
RCV is complicated, hard to explain to laymen, produces non-intuitive results, takes fucking forever to calculate, and significantly increases the complexity of our election system. The increased complexity and computational challenges are both direct threats to the integrity of our elections and reduce faith in the outcomes of election.Crunchums wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:19 pm articles like that piss me off. "the people running the election sucked at it and made tons of mistakes. the thing to blame? ranked choice voting"
RCV is more complicated than first-past-the-post but it is really not that complicated; if the election officials suck then get better election officials
On paper ranked choice is a nice idea, in practice is is a really really bad idea.
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
-
- her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before - Posts: 12359
- Joined: Jun 13, 2018
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
i mean it sure seems to me like this assessment of the soviet space program meets the declassification criteria, but let's put it in front of a jury, see if they disagree
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
Presumably that directive was in accordance with his EO? Nothing you linked there suggested otherwise.Rylinks wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:34 pm obama apparently did personally order declassification of a soviet-era intelligence brief. Could Obama be subject to a criminal investigation to determine whether that brief met the criteria for declassification under his executive order?
Pour like Hemingway's last call.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
that sounds right to me. right and good.Doug wrote:As different states and municipalities across the country adopt ranked-choice voting, it’s become obvious this mind-boggling election system deserves a new name: rigged-choice voting.
After nearly two months of tabulation, Alameda County, California, — one such ranked-choice voting (RCV) adoptee — announced it got the count wrong for its Nov. 8 election. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the California county admitted it made systemic errors while tabulating ballots. As a result of the snafu, an Oakland School Board race flipped: The top vote-getter (and certified winner) must now hand his board seat over to the third-place finisher.
While gross negligence on the part of some Alameda County election officials is not only probable but likely, RCV’s Byzantine election system must also take the blame. In it, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his voters are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate.
Huh?
That isn't how it works, right
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
nawDantes wrote:RCV is complicated, hard to explain to laymen, produces non-intuitive results, takes fucking forever to calculate, and significantly increases the complexity of our election system. The increased complexity and computational challenges are both direct threats to the integrity of our elections and reduce faith in the outcomes of election.Crunchums wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 10:19 pm articles like that piss me off. "the people running the election sucked at it and made tons of mistakes. the thing to blame? ranked choice voting"
RCV is more complicated than first-past-the-post but it is really not that complicated; if the election officials suck then get better election officials
On paper ranked choice is a nice idea, in practice is is a really really bad idea.
Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER
I don't get the point you're trying to make.
The President has the power to declassify documents. That is not in dispute. The question is whether the President has to follow a process. Rationally it seems he should, else how would you know if something had actually been declassified or not?
I get that you love playing Devil's Advocate, but it is really annoying right now. You know that an ex-President cannot make a claim of "Oh I declassified that" without some evidence that a process was followed and the documents actually are declassified. What's to prevent him from saying the same thing about theoretical classified documents that show up in Steve Bannon's underwear?
Pour like Hemingway's last call.