who's qbert? Originally Posted by dilbert firestormBait and snitch?
- Yssup Rider
- 08-14-2022, 10:45 PM
- VerySkeptical
- 08-15-2022, 03:00 AM
The "launch code" issue is complete and total bullshit. A red herring tossed to the faithful shills.
What complete moron, no not moron, someone who has no thoughts of their own, would think twice about it?
I didn't say it. The WaPo didn't say it. The NYT didn't say it.
It's just another diversion thrown out by the Trumpys.
Overcome your aversion to truth, logic, and the urge to scream whatever they tell you to.
The codes are changed on a daily basis.
Like the officer charged with carrying the "football" would let Trump, or anyone, root around in the "football case" or leave it alone with Trump.
And finally, if Trump had somehow managed to steal the codes. they would just change them. Duh!
Which you know they did the instant that fucking whack job left the building for the last time.
Adding the launch codes to the narrative is just a way of adding an unbelievable aspect to the search and make it more unbelievable to the uneducated and nonthinking Trumpys who would never challenge the Trump line of bullshit.
On this site, I believe lev17 was the first to mention launch codes. Who will be the next pusher of disinformation, the next user of preposterous Trumpspeak?
It is such a moronic idea, because of the reasons I stated, it is just Trump disinformation. He told y'all to run with it.
So pull your heads out of your asses and stop lying.
And on that note, Trump can't declassify all documents. The sooner you look that up, the sooner you can stop looking like you don't know shit and will believe anything you are told.
Can't remember the details but what it amounts to is that there are national security documents that are vital to the national defense. The president, no matter who it is, can't declassify them. The reasoning is very sound.
Can a president legally remove declassified information from the White House?
"No, according to security experts. There are other laws that protect the country’s most sensitive secrets beyond how it is classified. For example, according to Aftergood, some of the intelligence and documents related to nuclear weapons can’t be declassified by the president. Aftergood said such information is protected by a different law, the Atomic Energy Act.
Another law — called “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information” — states it is illegal to remove documents related to national security from their proper place if it could risk the security of the country, no matter the classification level of the information.
“The classification is just one piece of the picture,” Aftergood said. There are other protections in the law that can make disclosure or unauthorized retention problematic or even criminal."
What complete moron, no not moron, someone who has no thoughts of their own, would think twice about it?
I didn't say it. The WaPo didn't say it. The NYT didn't say it.
It's just another diversion thrown out by the Trumpys.
Overcome your aversion to truth, logic, and the urge to scream whatever they tell you to.
The codes are changed on a daily basis.
Like the officer charged with carrying the "football" would let Trump, or anyone, root around in the "football case" or leave it alone with Trump.
And finally, if Trump had somehow managed to steal the codes. they would just change them. Duh!
Which you know they did the instant that fucking whack job left the building for the last time.
Adding the launch codes to the narrative is just a way of adding an unbelievable aspect to the search and make it more unbelievable to the uneducated and nonthinking Trumpys who would never challenge the Trump line of bullshit.
On this site, I believe lev17 was the first to mention launch codes. Who will be the next pusher of disinformation, the next user of preposterous Trumpspeak?
It is such a moronic idea, because of the reasons I stated, it is just Trump disinformation. He told y'all to run with it.
So pull your heads out of your asses and stop lying.
And on that note, Trump can't declassify all documents. The sooner you look that up, the sooner you can stop looking like you don't know shit and will believe anything you are told.
Can't remember the details but what it amounts to is that there are national security documents that are vital to the national defense. The president, no matter who it is, can't declassify them. The reasoning is very sound.
Can a president legally remove declassified information from the White House?
"No, according to security experts. There are other laws that protect the country’s most sensitive secrets beyond how it is classified. For example, according to Aftergood, some of the intelligence and documents related to nuclear weapons can’t be declassified by the president. Aftergood said such information is protected by a different law, the Atomic Energy Act.
Another law — called “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information” — states it is illegal to remove documents related to national security from their proper place if it could risk the security of the country, no matter the classification level of the information.
“The classification is just one piece of the picture,” Aftergood said. There are other protections in the law that can make disclosure or unauthorized retention problematic or even criminal."
- lustylad
- 08-15-2022, 06:06 AM
Typing like a Howler Monkey does not turn the lights out...gets you a nominationDid your avatar tell you that or are you speaking from personal experience?
for a Drama Queen award !!! Originally Posted by WTF
He is a poster that has other posters who can logically counter his points on ignore...what a brave soul that is.Are you referring to 1b1, YR or Lucas?Originally Posted by WTF
- 1blackman1
- 08-15-2022, 09:29 AM
https://casetext.com/case/ny-times-v...ligence-agency
An interested read if you have time to learn something. In short, Trump tweeted about the existence generally of covert programs in Syria. The Times sought information claiming that Trump implicitly declassified the information by speaking publicly about it. His DoJ claimed no process to declassify was undertaken and therefore there was no declassification. The appeals court agreed, generally acknowledging that declassification is a process and without it, there is no declassification. Now, not exactly the same, but I’m sure this will come up if this goes to court. Particularly since this was Trump’s DoJ position.
For the folks who can’t read more than a couple of paragraphs, here’s a short snippet of the opinion.
To make its declassification claim, the Times essentially recasts its "official acknowledgement" claim as one of "inferred declassification." To prevail in any claim of declassification, inferred or otherwise, the Times's must show: first, that President Trump's statements are sufficiently specific; and second, that such statements subsequently triggered actual declassification. The first is easily disposed of because we have already found that the statements are insufficiently specific to quell any "lingering doubts" about what they reference. The second requires further discussion.
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
As explained above, Executive order 13,526 established the detailed process through which secret information can be appropriately declassified.
Phillippi v. CIA , 655 F.2d 1325, 1330 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The Times is also concerned that "unless the President declassifies information by formal means or with magic words – or the circumstances are otherwise "exceptional" – a court can never infer declassification[.]" Such concerns are mitigated, however, by the "official acknowledgement" doctrine. If the President publicly discloses the existence of a covert program within the Wilson framework, then there would be no need for courts to "infer declassification."
An interested read if you have time to learn something. In short, Trump tweeted about the existence generally of covert programs in Syria. The Times sought information claiming that Trump implicitly declassified the information by speaking publicly about it. His DoJ claimed no process to declassify was undertaken and therefore there was no declassification. The appeals court agreed, generally acknowledging that declassification is a process and without it, there is no declassification. Now, not exactly the same, but I’m sure this will come up if this goes to court. Particularly since this was Trump’s DoJ position.
For the folks who can’t read more than a couple of paragraphs, here’s a short snippet of the opinion.
To make its declassification claim, the Times essentially recasts its "official acknowledgement" claim as one of "inferred declassification." To prevail in any claim of declassification, inferred or otherwise, the Times's must show: first, that President Trump's statements are sufficiently specific; and second, that such statements subsequently triggered actual declassification. The first is easily disposed of because we have already found that the statements are insufficiently specific to quell any "lingering doubts" about what they reference. The second requires further discussion.
Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures. Moreover, courts cannot "simply assume, over the well-documented and specific affidavits of the CIA to the contrary," that disclosure is required simply because the information has already been made public. The Shiner affidavits, in addition to justifying the two FOIA exemptions, expressly stated that no declassification procedures had been followed with respect to any documents pertaining to the alleged covert program. Moreover, the Times cites no authority that stands for the proposition that the President can inadvertently declassify information and we are aware of none. Because declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures, that argument fails.
As explained above, Executive order 13,526 established the detailed process through which secret information can be appropriately declassified.
Phillippi v. CIA , 655 F.2d 1325, 1330 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The Times is also concerned that "unless the President declassifies information by formal means or with magic words – or the circumstances are otherwise "exceptional" – a court can never infer declassification[.]" Such concerns are mitigated, however, by the "official acknowledgement" doctrine. If the President publicly discloses the existence of a covert program within the Wilson framework, then there would be no need for courts to "infer declassification."