Breaking News

[Dutch Uncle]

Overly broad. Operative words: "but not limited to the following: " ... while missing any specification of location, erasing any validity to any obstruction charges.

Any subpoena that breaks the law is null and void. Trump does not have to turn over classified information to anyone.

Mantra 50 Public Masturbation

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I don't know exactly what was "returned" but the subpoena you posted is not valid for an obstruction charge. Nobody can "command" anybody else to provide everything on ... but not limited to ... a particular list, and then claim that certain items that were not delivered were somehow covered in the "but not limited to" clause. Also, the subpoena doesn't specify particularly the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, which is a 4th Amendment requirement. Calling it a "subpoena" instead of a "warrant" does not change the requirement; the purpose is the same, i.e. to gather evidence for a trial.


... which now appears totally bogus, given this new perspective that you have shown. The subpeona (potentially) violates Donald Trump's 4th Amendment rights. I personally don't know the extent to which Donald Trump is aware of every single document he posesses or has under his control, and I don't know to what extent Donald Trump made an effort to locate the documents and respond to the subpoena. Yes, yes, I'm sure that you are going to claim to know all of this with the greatest of omniscience ... and I don't believe you.


Overly broad. Operative words: "but not limited to the following: " ... while missing any specification of location, erasing any validity to any obstruction charges.

OMFG. You are so stupid it is beyond belief.

From the subpoena:
all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of
Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings,

A subpoena doesn't designate a place where the items are. It asks for all items the person has that are covered under the subpoena. For instance, a subpoena of Hunter Biden's bank records doesn't have to call out the specific branch where the records are kept. It would simply ask for all records of Hunter Biden. The person doesn't have to know what documents they have but they have to do a diligent search in response to the subpoena and turn over everything they find that is covered by the subpoena. When Hillary's emails about Benghazi were subpoenaed do you think anyone knew where they were or how many there were? No. They were required by the subpoena to do a diligent search and turn over everyone that they found related to Benghazi.

A subpoena can't violate the 4th amendment rights of anyone. They can try to get it squashed because there is no basis for it or they can argue after the fact that it was obtained using false information. As long as the subpoena is issued by the proper authority it is illegal to not comply fully with it or at least be able to show you were diligent in your search. Trump has already lost this battle in another case where the judge demanded to know what steps his lawyers took to comply since there were clearly documents not turned over.

A search warrant has to designate the place to search and a general description of the items being looked for. A subpoena does not. The search warrant does designate the premises to be searched: 1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480,

 

[Dutch Uncle]

OMFG. You are so stupid it is beyond belief....

Sybil ain't too bright, but mostly he's insane as his manifesto proves: https://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/19/debunking-signature

There was no 2020 election TO lose

There was no election in 2020.

Summary of the stolen election:...

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Since Sybil is you (and doesn't exist here except in your head)....

Mantra 48 Psychotic Buffoonery

Mantra 60 Excessive whining. 10 yard penalty

Sybil isn't here.

Sybil isn't here.

Is Sybil transgender?

 

[IBDaMann]

OMFG. You are so stupid it is beyond belief.

OMFAG! You are such a moron that you should double the person's pay who helps you type your posts. You are so stupid, you try to put M&M’s in alphabetical order. You think a quarterback is a refund.

Is this what we're going to do all day. I'm good if you're good.

The bottom line is that you HATE our representative republic, you HATE the Constitution and you hate the personal liberties protected by the Constitution. Not once have you addressed the intent of the Constitution and of the Bill of Rights.

From the subpoena:

I read the subpoena in its entirety. My conclusion stands.

A subpoena doesn't designate a place ...

I know about subpoenas. Let's talk more about what you don't know and what you do not understand. All subpoenas must adhere to the law. The Constitution is the supreme law. I know, this might come as a surprise to you, but your total EVASION of the Constitution renders everything you have to say on the matter totally irrelevant.

You haven't said anything that matters.

A subpoena can't violate the 4th amendment rights of anyone.

Incorrect. There are many ways a subpoena can violate the 4th amendment. So I guess now I need to insult you further.

OMFAG! You are stupid! You're so stupid you asked for a price check at the dollar store. They had to burn down the school to finally get you out of 3rd grade! Someone informed you that 90% of accidents occur in the home ... so you moved.

As long as the subpoena is issued by the proper authority it is illegal to not comply fully with it

Learn the law. As long as a subpoena is illegal, it is unenforceable. We can do this all day.

A search warrant has to designate the place to search and a general description of the items being looked for. A subpoena does not.

You wrote that in the passive voice. Evidence gathered from overly broad subpoenas gets thrown out all the time. Not specifying the place is one way to make a subpoena overly broad, which is why that requirement is listed in the 4th Amendment. If I were the judge, I would required far more specificity and I would not allow the added "not limited to the following". Apparently the judge is a political hack who is not impartial.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

OMFAG! You are such a moron that you should double the person's pay who helps you type your posts. You are so stupid, you try to put M&M’s in alphabetical order. You think a quarterback is a refund.

Is this what we're going to do all day. I'm good if you're good.

The bottom line is that you HATE our representative republic, you HATE the Constitution and you hate the personal liberties protected by the Constitution. Not once have you addressed the intent of the Constitution and of the Bill of Rights.


I read the subpoena in its entirety. My conclusion stands.


I know about subpoenas. Let's talk more about what you don't know and what you do not understand. All subpoenas must adhere to the law. The Constitution is the supreme law. I know, this might come as a surprise to you, but your total EVASION of the Constitution renders everything you have to say on the matter totally irrelevant.

You haven't said anything that matters.


Incorrect. There are many ways a subpoena can violate the 4th amendment. So I guess now I need to insult you further.

OMFAG! You are stupid! You're so stupid you asked for a price check at the dollar store. They had to burn down the school to finally get you out of 3rd grade! Someone informed you that 90% of accidents occur in the home ... so you moved.


Learn the law. As long as a subpoena is illegal, it is unenforceable. We can do this all day.


You wrote that in the passive voice. Evidence gathered from overly broad subpoenas gets thrown out all the time. Not specifying the place is one way to make a subpoena overly broad, which is why that requirement is listed in the 4th Amendment. If I were the judge, I would required far more specificity and I would not allow the added "not limited to the following". Apparently the judge is a political hack who is not impartial.

Mantra 52 Anal Leakage

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Into the Night]

ahhh.. Poor baby had to truncate my post to try to make an argument that makes sense.

Maybe you wouldn't make yourself look so stupid if you followed the link to the indictment. No need for a signed subpoena or a NDA to charge 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) which is clearly a charge that is legal to bring since multiple people have been indicted and convicted for it over the last 50 years.

Here, try responding again to my entire post -

U.S.C, Title 18, $793 does not apply.
Trump has lawful possession of all the documents. He has the authority to retain any document he wants.

 

[Into the Night]

You are confused.

No, that would be YOU. You are describing yourself again.

It is obstruction if you refuse to comply with a subpoena.

No, it isn't. Not if the subpoena itself is illegal (which this was).

Refusing to turn over documents under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e)
(COUNTS 1-31 Willful Retention of National Defense Information)
doesn't require a subpoena. Not turning over the documents is the crime.

Title 18, $793 does not apply. Trump is authorized to retain any document he wishes. He is NOT REQUIRED to turn over ANY classified information to unauthorized personnel, such as any FBI agent.

 

[Into the Night]

Your the guy that doesn't understand a DoS attack prevents almost everyone from using the service normally, not just a you.

Incorrect. The service operates normally.

 

[Into the Night]

A DOS is an attack on the system of the provider not on a user.

Nope. A DOS attack can take place against a user, against a server, or any intervening system.

Here is the explanation from wikipedia

There's your first problem. You think Wikipedia is the Holy Scripture and the Universal Truth.

The most common way is to overwhelm a server by sending more requests than it can handle. That is why the first line of defense is to restrict the number of requests from any one IP address in a given amount of time.

Nope. The first line of defense is to enlarge the number of paths. This is very easy to do on a typical cloud service such as AWS.

It's like you are determined to prove you are stupid.

No, that would be YOU again. You demonstrate repeatedly that you are stupid.

 

[Into the Night]

I am not the one pivoting since I have only been dealing with counts 1-31 of the indictment which are charged under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e).
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490069/3/united-states-v-trump/



Your spinning until you are dizzy and can't see straight doesn't mean I am weaving back and forth.

Pivot fallacies. YOU are the one pivoting.
Title 18, section 793 does not apply to Trump. He is authorized to retain any document he wishes.

 

[Into the Night]

Maybe I should ask a java programmer

Ask him what?

I am guessing you don't know what IP tables are.

IP tables have nothing to do with DOS attacks. You have just demonstrated that you don't know what IP tables are or what they're for.

You are guilty of using a weak defense against a DoS attack if you are using java to defend against such an attack.

Java can be used to defend against such an attack, but there are better languages out there.

A properly set up IP table will stop the attack long before any java app is called.

IP tables have nothing to do with DOS attacks.

An attempt to hack or attack a single account is not a DoS attack.

He never said any such thing.

when it comes to IT security.

You don't know any IT security. Ask me how I know.

Even if an attacker is trying to repeatedly and rapidly attack one account, the repeated attempt will be blocked by the IP table before your java code comes into play.

IP tables have nothing to do with DOS attacks.

 

[Into the Night]

I know what Java is.

Obviously, you don't.

Java doesn't do anything on it's own. You have to write an applet or a program with it before it can do anything.

Java doesn't do anything, period. It's a programming language.

A properly set up IP table will prevent any attack from ever getting to your java code since all packets must first be allowed to pass through based on the rules set up in the IP table.

IP tables do not stop DOS attacks.

An IP table with rules set up to block every attempt to connect will stop every attack you mentioned since an inability to even contact the server means that there can be no DOS attack of any kind.

IP tables do not block DOS attacks.

If the attacker can't send a get or fetch command to the server, they can never download any java code.

Not a DOS attack.

That isn't a denial of service attack.

Correct. You are pivoting again. You were discussing DOS attacks until you pivoted yet again.

That is the provider using his rights and blocking someone from using the service.

Obtaining Java source code is not a DOS attack.

It's what an IP table does.

IP tables do not block a DOS attack.

It can block your IP address from accessing the server.

If you use it that way, you have made a DOS attack.

I notice you were unable to provide an example of the java code you claimed can block a DOS attack.

Java is a programming language. It can be used to block a DOS attack.

It seems you aren't really a java programmer. But I already knew that.

You are describing yourself again. You obviously have no idea how to administer a network or a server either.

 

[Into the Night]

Now we are getting somewhere.

No, you are getting nowhere fast.

You at least have acknowledged that the documents weren't returned. This is now leading to the obstruction charges in the indictment

Trump is not required to return any documents.

A subpoena was issued requiring that Trump turn over all documents with classified documents.

Illegal. Trump is not required to show classified documents to unauthorized personnel.

Then evidence was found that he didn't turn over all the documents required by the subpoena so a search warrant was issued.

The search warrant itself was illegal.

When the search warrant was executed over 100 documents with classified markings were found. Documents that were specifically asked for by the subpoena.
Your claims are clearly false based on the documents in the court record.

Specify the documents.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't know exactly what was "returned" but the subpoena you posted is not valid for an obstruction charge. Nobody can "command" anybody else to provide everything on ... but not limited to ... a particular list, and then claim that certain items that were not delivered were somehow covered in the "but not limited to" clause. Also, the subpoena doesn't specify particularly the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, which is a 4th Amendment requirement. Calling it a "subpoena" instead of a "warrant" does not change the requirement; the purpose is the same, i.e. to gather evidence for a trial.


... which now appears totally bogus, given this new perspective that you have shown. The subpeona (potentially) violates Donald Trump's 4th Amendment rights. I personally don't know the extent to which Donald Trump is aware of every single document he posesses or has under his control, and I don't know to what extent Donald Trump made an effort to locate the documents and respond to the subpoena. Yes, yes, I'm sure that you are going to claim to know all of this with the greatest of omniscience ... and I don't believe you.


Overly broad. Operative words: "but not limited to the following: " ... while missing any specification of location, erasing any validity to any obstruction charges.

It is worse. The Judge AND the FBI violated Title 18, $793(e). They do not have authority to view classified documents.

 

[Into the Night]

OMFG. You are so stupid it is beyond belief.

From the subpoena:
all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of
Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings,

A subpoena doesn't designate a place where the items are. It asks for all items the person has that are covered under the subpoena. For instance, a subpoena of Hunter Biden's bank records doesn't have to call out the specific branch where the records are kept. It would simply ask for all records of Hunter Biden. The person doesn't have to know what documents they have but they have to do a diligent search in response to the subpoena and turn over everything they find that is covered by the subpoena. When Hillary's emails about Benghazi were subpoenaed do you think anyone knew where they were or how many there were? No. They were required by the subpoena to do a diligent search and turn over everyone that they found related to Benghazi.

A subpoena can't violate the 4th amendment rights of anyone. They can try to get it squashed because there is no basis for it or they can argue after the fact that it was obtained using false information. As long as the subpoena is issued by the proper authority it is illegal to not comply fully with it or at least be able to show you were diligent in your search. Trump has already lost this battle in another case where the judge demanded to know what steps his lawyers took to comply since there were clearly documents not turned over.

A search warrant has to designate the place to search and a general description of the items being looked for. A subpoena does not. The search warrant does designate the premises to be searched: 1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480,

So you cannot specify a valid subpoena. Gotit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

So you cannot specify a valid subpoena. Gotit.

I don't have to designate a valid subpoena since the courts have already done it.
The subpoena was valid. Even Trump's lawyers aren't stupid enough to argue it wasn't valid.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

OMFAG! You are such a moron that you should double the person's pay who helps you type your posts. You are so stupid, you try to put M&M’s in alphabetical order. You think a quarterback is a refund.

Is this what we're going to do all day. I'm good if you're good.

The bottom line is that you HATE our representative republic, you HATE the Constitution and you hate the personal liberties protected by the Constitution. Not once have you addressed the intent of the Constitution and of the Bill of Rights.


I read the subpoena in its entirety. My conclusion stands.

.

Congratulations on the law degree you got from Ovaltine.
Congratulations on the comic certificate you got in the first grade.

Meanwhile back in the real world, the subpoena is valid and legal and Trump (allegedly) failed to comply with it. Trump's lawyers at the time have already had to testify to the grand jury about what Trump told then at the time of the search in response to the subpoena. The lawyers had to do that to protect from being charged with conspiracy to commit obstruction. The court ruled that the attorneys could be questioned because their actions likely violated the crime fraud exception to attorney client privilege. The appeals court upheld the ruling that Trump's attorneys should testify.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/17/politics/evan-corcoran-testimony-trump-lawyer/index.html
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...-testify-on-mar-a-lago-case-before-grand-jury
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...rime-fraud-ruling-classified-docume-rcna76536

The funny thing is a subpoena is assumed valid unless a court rules it invalid. At this point multiple courts have accepted the subpoena as valid.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't have to designate a valid subpoena since the courts have already done it.
The subpoena was valid.

No court has issued a valid subpoena to seize classified documents. It is illegal to issue such a subpoena.

Even Trump's lawyers aren't stupid enough to argue it wasn't valid.

What argument? What lawyers? There was no hearing or trial, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

Congratulations on the law degree you got from Ovaltine.
Congratulations on the comic certificate you got in the first grade.

No law degree required, dummy.

Meanwhile back in the real world,

Buzzword fallacy.

the subpoena is valid and legal

No, it isn't. It violates law.

and Trump (allegedly) failed to comply with it.

Trump doesn't have to comply with it.

Trump's lawyers at the time have already had to testify to the grand jury about what Trump told then at the time of the search in response to the subpoena. The lawyers had to do that to protect from being charged with conspiracy to commit obstruction. The court ruled that the attorneys could be questioned because their actions likely violated the crime fraud exception to attorney client privilege.

You cannot defend a kangaroo court.

The funny thing is a subpoena is assumed valid unless a court rules it invalid.

WRONG. A subpoena MUST conform to all the laws and the Constitution of the United States or it is automatically invalid.

At this point multiple courts have accepted the subpoena as valid.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution.
No DEMOCRAT owned propaganda service has the authority to change the Constitution.