Former Trump aide Kash Patel set to testify in Mar-a-Lago docs probe: report

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Did you know that repeating yourself is a sign of your latent homosexuality?

Anyway, not that you do what you seem to insist that others do (since you’re a hypocritical gasbag), the actual TOPIC of this thread, Ensign, is the Kash Patel grant of limited immunity designed to make him testify under oath before a grand jury about … whatever … supposedly related to the Trump possession of various documents at Mar A Lago.

If you care to get past your hypocrisy, you can maybe address that topic instead of other peoples’ typos and your fixation on dicks.

I’ve noticed that several of our resident libtards seem to be confused. They seem to be claiming that, since the Government had to resort to asking the Court to give Kash limited use immunity, it somehow “follows” (in “logic”?) that Patel now will not be able to testify that the President had ordered the declassification of some previously classified documents.

I also note that they can’t explain their alleged “logic” in their jump to that conclusion.

You just can't let it go, can you?

Don't go away mad, just go away!

 

[meaner gene]

He will not be able to testify that the President had ordered the declassification of some previously classified documents because that statement is not true.

You see, that is the way sworn testimony works.
If you say some rando bullshit crap that isn't true....you go to jail.

And he knows this.

It's simple logic. Take what Patel has said in public, and in editorials, and when asked under oath to say the same thing under oath, he pleads the 5th.

That's proof that his public statements were lies.

Now that the judge granted him use immunity, Patel will have to tell the truth, which most likely be completely different than his previous public statements.

 

[BackAgain]

You just can't let it go, can you?

Don't go away mad, just go away!

Persist in your juvenile efforts and continue to do what you hypocritically demand others not do.

Ensign, your fixation on dicks includes yourself. No wonder you’re a narcissist.

Post any time you wish. But try to address the topic: Patel. Immunity. Testimony pending. You know; that kind of thing. Good luck.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Persist in your juvenile efforts and continue to do what you hypocritically demand others not do.

Ensign, your fixation on docks includes yourself. No wonder you’re a narcissist.

Post any time you wish. But try to address the topic. Patel. Immunity. Testimony pending. You know; that kind of thing. Good luck.

I do have a fixation with docks. That's where you tie up your ship!

Do you believe in reincarnation? Perhaps in your next life you will learn to proofread your personal attacks!

 

[BackAgain]

He will not be able to testify that the President had ordered the declassification of some previously classified documents because that statement is not true.

Sure it is. Otherwise even a piddling twat waffle like you could offer evidence of its alleged falsity. You haven’t done so. You can’t. And we all know that.

You see, that is the way sworn testimony works.
If you say some rando bullshit crap that isn't true....you go to jail.

Wrong. If you lie under oath on a material issue, and if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that your testimony was actually a lie, then you can be convicted and sentenced.

And he knows this.

Probably. You need to get educated on it, however.

Even if it WAS true that trump thought he could just wave a wand and "declassify" what he wanted (which it isn't) he's still in possession of stolen classified material because

False. If he said it, that’s sufficient.

#1 He stole them

Wrong. He was in possession of them. But “stole” is a legal term and you always misuse it.

#2 That is not how the declassification protocol works.

The protocol applies to underlings, not to the President himself, you ignorant twit.

Not even remotely close!

You certainly aren’t. Not on any point.

 

[MagicMike]

It's simple logic. Take what Patel has said in public, and in editorials, and when asked under oath to say the same thing under oath, he pleads the 5th.

That's proof that his public statements were lies.

Now that the judge granted him use immunity, Patel will have to tell the truth, which most likely be completely different than his previous public statements.

Yep

Same as Michael Flynn and Roger Stone in their Jan. 6th Committee depositions.

After a year and a half of inflamatory, seditious, "stolen election" war talk, they get in a room with lawmakers asking them questions under oath and suddenly go completely mute.
They only plead the 5th.

And like Donald Trump said
"ONLY CRIMINALS PLEAD THE FIFTH!"

 

[BackAgain]

I do have a fixation with docks. That's where you tie up your ship!

That’s a good school marm. You caught the typo a moment before I had corrected it.

Do you believe in reincarnation? Perhaps in your next life you will learn to proofread your personal attacks!

You are indeed a faggot.

And you’re still entirely off topic, ensign hypocrite.

 

[MagicMike]

Sure it is. Otherwise even a piddling twat waffle like you could offer evidence of its alleged falsity. You haven’t done so. You can’t. And we all know that.

Wrong. If you lie under oath on a material issue, and if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that your testimony was actually a lie, then you can be convicted and sentenced.

Probably. You need to get educated on it, however.

False. If he said it, that’s sufficient.

Wrong. He was in possession of them. But “stole” is a legal term and you always misuse it.

The protocol applies to underlings, not to the President himself, you ignorant twit.

You certainly aren’t. Not on any point.

How does your rectum look from the inside?

 

[meaner gene]

Sure it is. Otherwise even a piddling twat waffle like you could offer evidence of its alleged falsity. You haven’t done so. You can’t. And we all know that.

Easy proof is, if you can't say it under oath, it probably ain't true.

 

[BackAgain]

How does your rectum look from the inside?

So you admit that you’re hopelessly gay.

Check.

 

[MagicMike]

The protocol applies to underlings, not to the President himself, you ignorant twit.

You REALLY REALLY need to rethink your informational sources!

(4) other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. However, the Archivist shall have the authority to review, downgrade, and declassify papers or records of former Presidents under the control of the Archivist pursuant to sections 2107, 2111, 2111 note, or 2203 of title 44, United States Code. Review procedures developed by the Archivist shall provide for consultation with agencies having primary subject matter interest and shall be consistent with the provisions of applicable laws or lawful agreements that pertain to the respective Presidential papers or records. Agencies with primary subject matter interest shall be notified promptly of the Archivist's decision. Any final decision by the Archivist may be appealed by the requester or an agency to the Panel. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.

Basic Laws and Authorities

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12958, as amended by Executive Order 13292, can be found at 68 Federal Register 15315 (March 28, 2003).

www.archives.gov

Sure it is. Otherwise even a piddling twat waffle like you could offer evidence of its alleged falsity. You haven’t done so. You can’t. And we all know that.

Wrong. If you lie under oath on a material issue, and if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that your testimony was actually a lie, then you can be convicted and sentenced.

Probably. You need to get educated on it, however.

False. If he said it, that’s sufficient.

Wrong. He was in possession of them. But “stole” is a legal term and you always misuse it.

The protocol applies to underlings, not to the President himself, you ignorant twit.

You certainly aren’t. Not on any point.

 

[meaner gene]

What's interesting is how the Trump supporters focus on proving the stolen documents weren't classified. And ignore the obvious problem that the documents, classified or not, were still stolen.

Proof of them being stolen is by the presidential records act codifying in law, that the presidents papers transfer ownership to the US Government upon his leaving office.

 

[BackAgain]

You REALLY REALLY need to rethink your informational sources!

(4) other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. However, the Archivist shall have the authority to review, downgrade, and declassify papers or records of former Presidents under the control of the Archivist pursuant to sections 2107, 2111, 2111 note, or 2203 of title 44, United States Code. Review procedures developed by the Archivist shall provide for consultation with agencies having primary subject matter interest and shall be consistent with the provisions of applicable laws or lawful agreements that pertain to the respective Presidential papers or records. Agencies with primary subject matter interest shall be notified promptly of the Archivist's decision. Any final decision by the Archivist may be appealed by the requester or an agency to the Panel. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.

Basic Laws and Authorities

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12958, as amended by Executive Order 13292, can be found at 68 Federal Register 15315 (March 28, 2003).

www.archives.gov

Summary: you being nothing to the table to refute anything I said.

What the archivist can do is unrelated to our discussion.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wow, are you confused. No wonder Democrats don’t care if we lose our republic. They don’t even know that we have one.

In our republic, the people own classified documents created by our employees in the government using equipment and supplies that we bought them.

Just like when you wrap a burger at your job. That burger belongs to the owners of the restaurant, it isn’t yours because you processed it. You are paid by those owners to process their property. If you invent a new burger on the job and call it the Husky Burger, guess who owns it?

All those agencies could testify to is that they handled those documents as classified, under the authority of the president who is the sole arbiter of what is and is not classified. They could never testify that they somehow forbade the president from declassifying documents without the agencies asking first.

Nor could they cite any law requiring the president to get permission from anyone ever to classify and declassify information.


Trump demonstrated his belief that the documents were declassified by taking them out of the White House and to his private residence. If you could point to a specific law that requires the president to follow a specific procedure or be “real or substantive as is routinely done (by non-presidents), you would have an argument to say “he thought they were declassified, but he thought wrong because declassification requires ______________ according to law _______________ .”

Of course, that law would have to somehow over-ride the constitution since the president is the sole final decider of what is and is not classified.

It was illegal for Trump to possess those docs and obstruct the govt’s efforts to retrieve them regardless of their classification. Period.

 

[MagicMike]

Summary: you being nothing to the table to refute anything I said.

What the archivist can do is unrelated to our discussion.

Don't you have some older siblings or something you can argue with kid?

It's just fucking TEDIOUS dealing with your idiocy.

First you make some ridiculous claim.
Then I call you on your bullshit.

Then you demand "proof" of what I said.

Then I do YOUR research for you and provide the proof.

Then you don't even READ IT....but you say nevertheless that it isn't proof.

So then you claim that no proof was provided....which is simply just another ridiculous claim that circles back to step one again.

Go PLAY!

The adults here are having discussions.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No you ignorant asshole. You’re wrong again. It’s not “certain.” It’s not even true.

But nice way to duck the question, you gutless pussy.

It’s absolutely certain when the questions are so simple.
When asked if Trump declassified docs and he responds with the fifth, it’s because he doesn’t want to either lie and expose himself to perjury charges or he doesn’t want the truth exposed.

He will now have to answer that question in front of the GJ.

 

[meaner gene]

Summary: you being nothing to the table to refute anything I said.

What the archivist can do is unrelated to our discussion.

Actually you brought no citations to the table to support anything you claimed.

 

[BackAgain]

Don't you have some older siblings or something you can argue with kid?

It's just fucking TEDIOUS dealing with your idiocy.

You are an imbecile, so you are horrified at having your imbecility exposed. Conversations with you do tend to be tedious. But you are to blame, you factless emotion-driven twat.

First you make some ridiculous claim.
Then I call you on your bullshit.

Nope. I regularly call you out for your bullshit. You don’t like it and so now you’re simply accusing me of what you do. Your a transparently stupid libtard.

Then you demand "proof" of what I said.

Nope. But I do challenge you to support some of your obvious bullshit since it’s clear yih can’t and never will. Again, I like exposing you for the dishonest imbecile you are.

Then I do YOUR research for you and provide the proof.

Not yet you haven’t. Ever.

Then you don't even READ IT....but you say nevertheless that it isn't proof.

I did read your fully off the mark quote. That’s how I knew it had no relevance. Too bad you couldn’t realize that before stupidly posting it.

So then you claim that no proof was provided....which is simply just another ridiculous claim that circles back to step one again.

False. Exposing you’re imbecility and ignorance was the very point.

Go PLAY!

GFY.

The adults here are having discussions.

So you must be playing in a crib, then.

Face facts for once, little Mick. You’ve got nothing and it shows.

 

[MagicMike]

It’s absolutely certain when the questions are so simple.
When asked if Trump declassified docs and he responds with the fifth, it’s because he doesn’t want to either lie and expose himself to perjury charges or he doesn’t want the truth exposed.

He will now have to answer that question in front of the GJ.

Actually you brought no citations to the table to support anything you claimed.

Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies.

In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said

Fact check explores presidential authority to declassify

More than two months after FBI agents seized boxes of materials at former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence, known as Mar-a-Lago, the federal investigation continues amid conflicting legal interpretations of a president’s authority

www.americanbar.org

 

[meaner gene]

In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said

Amazing how they claim nobody posted citations to show declassification requires following procedures, and not just thinking about it.