Breaking News

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No law degree required, dummy.

Buzzword fallacy.

No, it isn't. It violates law.

Trump doesn't have to comply with it.

You cannot defend a kangaroo court.

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

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

Thanks for your prompt reply, IBDaMann.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I am curious what argument your lawyers made at the hearing to determine you were competent enough to be released.

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

 

[domer76]

I am curious what argument your lawyers made at the hearing to determine you were competent enough to be released.

You’re trying to have a discussion with a QAnon level moron.

 

[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.

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.

No law degree required, dummy.

Buzzword fallacy.

No, it isn't. It violates law.

Trump doesn't have to comply with it.

You cannot defend a kangaroo court.

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

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

Thanks for your prompt reply, IBDaMann.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for your prompt reply, IBDaMann.

I am not IBDaMann, Sock. He doesn't even live in Washington, like I do.

 

[Into the Night]

I am curious what argument your lawyers made at the hearing to determine you were competent enough to be released.

Released from what? What lawyers? What hearing?

 

[Into the Night]

You’re trying to have a discussion with a QAnon level moron.

No such thing as 'QAnon', Dumber.

 

[Into the Night]

Laughing at your sock, Sock?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Laughing at your sock, Sock?

Mantra 58 Dumbfuckery

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

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

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No such thing as 'QAnon', Dumber.

Mantra 42 Small Dick Syndrome (SDS)

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

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

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Released from what? What lawyers? What hearing?

Mantra 45 Rectal-Cranial Inversion Syndrome (RCIS)

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

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

 

[IBDaMann]

(The Judge AND the FBI) do not have authority to view classified documents.

Actually they do. Judges presumably act on behalf of We the People and have the authority to view all documents that have bearing on the cases they are to decide. Of course, included in their duties is the responsibility to protect all such documents that they order released to them. The FBI is part of the Intelligence Community. They have people with all the necessary clearances to view such documents because they exchange such documents (that meet strict conditions) with the other Intelligence agencies all the time. One example, the FBI has a facility in Clarksburg, W. Virginia which works hand-in-glove with the Defense Intelligence Agency to feed foreign terrorist data to the FBI to prevent domestic terrorism. Swan would be correct in asserting that the FBI performs its own security clearance background investigations, and those enable FBI personnel to view classified information.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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

Actually they do. Judges presumably act on behalf of We the People and have the authority to view all documents that have bearing on the cases they are to decide. Of course, included in their duties is the responsibility to protect all such documents that they order released to them. The FBI is part of the Intelligence Community. They have people with all the necessary clearances to view such documents because they exchange such documents (that meet strict conditions) with the other Intelligence agencies all the time. One example, the FBI has a facility in Clarksburg, W. Virginia which works hand-in-glove with the Defense Intelligence Agency to feed foreign terrorist data to the FBI to prevent domestic terrorism. Swan would be correct in asserting that the FBI performs its own security clearance background investigations, and those enable FBI personnel to view classified information.

Mantra 50 Public Masturbation

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

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

 

[Into the Night]

Actually they do.

No, they don't. The FBI has NO BLANKET authorization to view classified material.

Judges presumably act on behalf of We the People and have the authority to view all documents that have bearing on the cases they are to decide.

Judges do NOT have authority to view any classified material or bring it into a courtroom for a jury to view. Such material MUST be handled through special courts that have that authority.

Of course, included in their duties is the responsibility to protect all such documents that they order released to them. The FBI is part of the Intelligence Community.

The FBI is not part of the intelligence community. They are a so-called law enforcement organization. Even people in the intelligence community MUST obtain proper authority to view documents they do not themselves generate.

They have people with all the necessary clearances to view such documents because they exchange such documents (that meet strict conditions) with the other Intelligence agencies all the time.

The FBI or the other agency creates those documents for just that purpose, they are classified, but since they themselves created them, that's okay.

One example, the FBI has a facility in Clarksburg, W. Virginia which works hand-in-glove with the Defense Intelligence Agency to feed foreign terrorist data to the FBI to prevent domestic terrorism.

In this case, the FBI and the Defense intelligence agency involved are creating their own documents for that purpose. They cannot just view any classified document.

Swan would be correct in asserting that the FBI performs its own security clearance background investigations, and those enable FBI personnel to view classified information.

Their own, or those they work with for those purposes, yes. In general, no.

 

[Lightbringer]

No, they don't. The FBI has NO BLANKET authorization to view classified material.

Judges do NOT have authority to view any classified material or bring it into a courtroom for a jury to view. Such material MUST be handled through special courts that have that authority.

The FBI is not part of the intelligence community. They are a so-called law enforcement organization. Even people in the intelligence community MUST obtain proper authority to view documents they do not themselves generate.

The FBI or the other agency creates those documents for just that purpose, they are classified, but since they themselves created them, that's okay.

In this case, the FBI and the Defense intelligence agency involved are creating their own documents for that purpose. They cannot just view any classified document.

Their own, or those they work with for those purposes, yes. In general, no.

Everything you just said is incorrect.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, they don't. The FBI has NO BLANKET authorization to view classified material.

Do you believe that the CIA or the NSA have authorization? The FBI is a part of the Intelligence Community just as they are. This is easily verifiable.

Judges do NOT have authority to view any classified material or bring it into a courtroom for a jury to view.

There are three parts to this. First, judges themselves have full authority over all evidence pertaining to their cases. This is required to prevent a tyrannical government from declaring damaging evidence against it "classified." Second, judges can perform in camera review and decide in their chambers which documents are relevant and which are not. Third, just as a Federal government agency can grant clearance, so can a court grant to jury members clearance to view those documents for which they thusly have a need to know. The court can require the jury to protect the information.

Such material MUST be handled through special courts that have that authority.

You mean such cases must use judges that have the proper security clearances where the judges are so tiered, e.g. Federal judges, military judges, others. Otherwise, no one has the power to deny a court relevant evidence just because someone in the government declared it classified. Court cases are tried based on type of case, not on the type of evidence. Anyone convicted who did not get relevant evidence entered will have the conviction overturned on appeal. No prosecutor or judge gets to deny anyone any relevant evidence.

The FBI is not part of the intelligence community.

You are mistaken. Check with ODNI. You can check their website or you can call them at 703–733–8600

They are a so-called law enforcement organization.

So is the Coast Guard, and both the FBI and Coast Guard Intelligence are members of the Intelligence Community.

Even people in the intelligence community MUST obtain proper authority to view documents they do not themselves generate.

Correct, and also for documents they do themselves generate (called derivative information or derivative documents). FYI, the "proper authority" of which you speak has three requirements: 1. properly adjudicated clearance based on a properly completed background investigation, a signed NDA, and a bona fide need to know (need to access) the information. The President, however, does not sign any NDA, because his clearance comes directly from the Constitution, i.e. from We the People, and thus there is no issuing government agency that can rescind/revoke it.

The FBI or the other agency creates those documents for just that purpose, they are classified, but since they themselves created them, that's okay.

There are special rules for interagency sharing of information. Defense agencies have the primary objective of serving "the warfighter" and that is used by agencies to establish need to share particular datasets.

In this case, the FBI and the Defense intelligence agency involved are creating their own documents for that purpose.

Yes, there are documents but there is also evidence that the FBI can use to get warrants if need be. There is also evidence that will not hold up in a US court of law but that the FBI can use to narrow their focus to just a few people, or just one person, instead of hundreds or thousands.

They cannot just view any classified document.

In summary, judges have the authority to ensure a fair trial, which includes full authority to ensure all relevant evidence is entered. With classified information, a need to know is required for viewing; a trial establishes that need to know. I suppose jurors can sign NDAs; I've never heard of instances of this kind of issue so I don't know exactly what they do.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Judge finds Trump committed fraud in NY civil case.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-letitia-james-fraud-lawsuit-1569245a9284427117b8d3ba5da74249

That is going to get overturned, and really criminal charges should be filed against the AG, disbarred, the whole 9.

 

[Phantasmal]

That is going to get overturned, and really criminal charges should be filed against the AG, disbarred, the whole 9.

Keeping clicking those heels…

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Keeping clicking those heels…

He'll eventually blame the NYC Jews.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you believe that the CIA or the NSA have authorization?

No blanket authorization. Specific authorizations. Of course, the NSA in particular tends to ignore that.

The FBI is a part of the Intelligence Community just as they are. This is easily verifiable.

The FBI was a law enforcement agency. Today, it's just a Gestapo.

There are three parts to this. First, judges themselves have full authority over all evidence pertaining to their cases. This is required to prevent a tyrannical government from declaring damaging evidence against it "classified."

Courts do not have blanket authorization to view any classified document.

Second, judges can perform in camera review and decide in their chambers which documents are relevant and which are not.

Irrelevant.

Third, just as a Federal government agency can grant clearance, so can a court grant to jury members clearance to view those documents for which they thusly have a need to know.

IF and only if the court involved has the authority in the first place.

The court can require the jury to protect the information.

Yes.

You mean such cases must use judges that have the proper security clearances where the judges are so tiered, e.g. Federal judges, military judges, others.

In general, yes.

Otherwise, no one has the power to deny a court relevant evidence just because someone in the government declared it classified.

No. Courts in general do NOT have authority to view any classified document.

Court cases are tried based on type of case, not on the type of evidence.

Irrelevant.

Anyone convicted who did not get relevant evidence entered will have the conviction overturned on appeal. No prosecutor or judge gets to deny anyone any relevant evidence.

Irrelevant. The prosecutor or judge, if breaking the law, can be PROSECUTED.

You are mistaken. Check with ODNI. You can check their website or you can call them at 703–733–8600

Irrelevant. The function of the FBI is law enforcement (or at least that's what it's supposed to be).

So is the Coast Guard, and both the FBI and Coast Guard Intelligence are members of the Intelligence Community.

NONE give blanket access to all classified material.

Correct, and also for documents they do themselves generate (called derivative information or derivative documents). FYI, the "proper authority" of which you speak has three requirements: 1. properly adjudicated clearance based on a properly completed background investigation, a signed NDA, and a bona fide need to know (need to access) the information. The President, however, does not sign any NDA, because his clearance comes directly from the Constitution, i.e. from We the People, and thus there is no issuing government agency that can rescind/revoke it.

Correct.

There are special rules for interagency sharing of information.

Correct. For the reasons I described.

Defense agencies have the primary objective of serving "the warfighter" and that is used by agencies to establish need to share particular datasets.

Correct, with the limitations I have described.

Yes, there are documents but there is also evidence that the FBI can use to get warrants if need be. There is also evidence that will not hold up in a US court of law but that the FBI can use to narrow their focus to just a few people, or just one person, instead of hundreds or thousands.

Also true. This has nothing to do with their authorization (or lack thereof) of viewing classified material.

In summary, judges have the authority to ensure a fair trial, which includes full authority to ensure all relevant evidence is entered.

If the judge in question does not have authority to view such material, you cannot hold a trial in that court. It is outside the jurisdiction of that court. Jurisdiction is defined by more than just geographic lines, you know.

With classified information, a need to know is required for viewing; a trial establishes that need to know.

No judge can grant himself authority to view any classified material. A trial in such a court cannot be held.

I suppose jurors can sign NDAs; I've never heard of instances of this kind of issue so I don't know exactly what they do.

In a court that DOES have authorization to view that particular classified material, the jury must be checked and signed.

You seem to forget there is ONE court that DOES have authority to view any classified information (but not retain it). That is the Senate itself. If the Supreme Court must have such access, the Senate has authority to provide it.