Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Skylar posted the law, dumbshit. What don't I know about it?You don't know what you are saying. That is your whole problem.We're done with this thread because you simply refuse to address what I'm saying and continue your gas lighting.You have to be an unimaginable dumbfuck not to know that the President can declassify any document at any time. The procedures on declassification you refer to are the product of executive orders. Which means a President created them. Which means a President can uncreate them with the stroke of a pen, which is what Trump just did.More accurately, there's a standard security review as there is at any declassification and Trump decided to slow it down.
And the people asking Trump not to release certain documents are Trump's key allies. Says who?
Says Trump. You literally have to ignore Trump to cling to your imaginary narrative.
Who are these "key allies" you refer to? I'm dead certain that they are in reality his enemies.
I'm not referring to key allies. Trump is. You're literally ignoring Trump on his own reasoning and replacing it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the FBI's conclusions regarding with Hillary and replaced it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the IG's conclusions about the FBI investigation and replaced it with your imagination.
You're a bit of a one trick pony. And your imagination is still gloriously useless.
You also sighted the actual text of the law, and nowhere does it say that ignorance of the law is a valid defense. If you disagree, then post the text where it does. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, gaslighter.We're done with this thread because you simply refuse to address what I'm saying and continue your gas lighting.You have to be an unimaginable dumbfuck not to know that the President can declassify any document at any time. The procedures on declassification you refer to are the product of executive orders. Which means a President created them. Which means a President can uncreate them with the stroke of a pen, which is what Trump just did.
Who are these "key allies" you refer to? I'm dead certain that they are in reality his enemies.
I'm not referring to key allies. Trump is. You're literally ignoring Trump on his own reasoning and replacing it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the FBI's conclusions regarding with Hillary and replaced it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the IG's conclusions about the FBI investigation and replaced it with your imagination.
You're a bit of a one trick pony. And your imagination is still gloriously useless.
And by 'gas lighting', you mean citing Trump on Trump, the FBI, and the IG on the FBI investigation......rather than whatever hapless batshit you make up?
If so, I don't think 'gaslighting' means what you think it means. As you're ignoring the evidence while I'm merely citing it.
Gaslighting - Wikipedia
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
The "batshit" I "makeup" is that actual law, which you posted, dumbass.
When are you going to quote the text that says ignorance of the law is a valid defense? I predict your response will be more gaslighting.
That seems to be a perfect description of what you're doing. I cite actual investigations, actual statements by Trump, actual FBI conclusions, actual court proceedings, actual IG reports.
You cite your imagination, your imagination, your imagination, your imagination and your imagination. And then insist that what you make up must be true.
You're gaslighting. And simply unreliable.
Please quote the part where it says ignorance of the law is a valid defense,f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, Look nit wit, it isn't that hard. "Whoever, being entrusted with any document" constitutes transmitting defense information. Trump is knowingly doing that. Which constitutes obstruction. A middle school kid can get this. Educate yourself and stop being an ignorant prick.Please quote the text that says intent to break the law is required. If you can't quote it, then admit you're wrong and shut the fuck up.Specifically, how come it doesn't? Telling us it doesn't tells us nothing. You have to explain the specifics of the law, and how it doesn't relate to Trumps order?You're sure that the Mueller report to DOJ will see the light of day? I recall a case where a private server and gross negligence was excused because there was "no intent". I'm sure that Trump's DOJ will match or trump the excuses made for Hillary.
Read the law, gross negligence in the Espionage Act REQUIRES you knowing that you are committing a felony.... and requires you obtaining the T/S info from ''its proper place''.... neither happened.
Comey was right.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
The text of the law doesn't support your claim, dingbat.
8 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
prev | next
United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—
section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, § 1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
You also sighted the actual text of the law, and nowhere does it say that ignorance of the law is a valid defense. If you disagree, then post the text where it does. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, gaslighter.We're done with this thread because you simply refuse to address what I'm saying and continue your gas lighting.I'm not referring to key allies. Trump is. You're literally ignoring Trump on his own reasoning and replacing it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the FBI's conclusions regarding with Hillary and replaced it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the IG's conclusions about the FBI investigation and replaced it with your imagination.
You're a bit of a one trick pony. And your imagination is still gloriously useless.
And by 'gas lighting', you mean citing Trump on Trump, the FBI, and the IG on the FBI investigation......rather than whatever hapless batshit you make up?
If so, I don't think 'gaslighting' means what you think it means. As you're ignoring the evidence while I'm merely citing it.
Gaslighting - Wikipedia
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
The "batshit" I "makeup" is that actual law, which you posted, dumbass.
When are you going to quote the text that says ignorance of the law is a valid defense? I predict your response will be more gaslighting.
That seems to be a perfect description of what you're doing. I cite actual investigations, actual statements by Trump, actual FBI conclusions, actual court proceedings, actual IG reports.
You cite your imagination, your imagination, your imagination, your imagination and your imagination. And then insist that what you make up must be true.
You're gaslighting. And simply unreliable.
Please quote the part where it says ignorance of the law is a valid defense,f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, Look nit wit, it isn't that hard. "Whoever, being entrusted with any document" constitutes transmitting defense information. Trump is knowingly doing that. Which constitutes obstruction. A middle school kid can get this. Educate yourself and stop being an ignorant prick.Please quote the text that says intent to break the law is required. If you can't quote it, then admit you're wrong and shut the fuck up.Specifically, how come it doesn't? Telling us it doesn't tells us nothing. You have to explain the specifics of the law, and how it doesn't relate to Trumps order?Read the law, gross negligence in the Espionage Act REQUIRES you knowing that you are committing a felony.... and requires you obtaining the T/S info from ''its proper place''.... neither happened.
Comey was right.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
The text of the law doesn't support your claim, dingbat.
8 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
prev | next
United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—
section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, § 1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
I highlighted the part that you are avoiding. Beside the fact that you are a liar, you are incapable of critical thinking. Skylar posted the law for you. The fact that you don't want to see it, is your denial, no one else's.Skylar posted the law, dumbshit. What don't I know about it?You don't know what you are saying. That is your whole problem.We're done with this thread because you simply refuse to address what I'm saying and continue your gas lighting.You have to be an unimaginable dumbfuck not to know that the President can declassify any document at any time. The procedures on declassification you refer to are the product of executive orders. Which means a President created them. Which means a President can uncreate them with the stroke of a pen, which is what Trump just did.More accurately, there's a standard security review as there is at any declassification and Trump decided to slow it down.
And the people asking Trump not to release certain documents are Trump's key allies. Says who?
Says Trump. You literally have to ignore Trump to cling to your imaginary narrative.
Who are these "key allies" you refer to? I'm dead certain that they are in reality his enemies.
I'm not referring to key allies. Trump is. You're literally ignoring Trump on his own reasoning and replacing it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the FBI's conclusions regarding with Hillary and replaced it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the IG's conclusions about the FBI investigation and replaced it with your imagination.
You're a bit of a one trick pony. And your imagination is still gloriously useless.
What is he talking about with this "text of any law"?You also sighted the actual text of the law, and nowhere does it say that ignorance of the law is a valid defense. If you disagree, then post the text where it does. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, gaslighter.We're done with this thread because you simply refuse to address what I'm saying and continue your gas lighting.
And by 'gas lighting', you mean citing Trump on Trump, the FBI, and the IG on the FBI investigation......rather than whatever hapless batshit you make up?
If so, I don't think 'gaslighting' means what you think it means. As you're ignoring the evidence while I'm merely citing it.
Gaslighting - Wikipedia
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
The "batshit" I "makeup" is that actual law, which you posted, dumbass.
When are you going to quote the text that says ignorance of the law is a valid defense? I predict your response will be more gaslighting.
That seems to be a perfect description of what you're doing. I cite actual investigations, actual statements by Trump, actual FBI conclusions, actual court proceedings, actual IG reports.
You cite your imagination, your imagination, your imagination, your imagination and your imagination. And then insist that what you make up must be true.
You're gaslighting. And simply unreliable.
You're gaslighting again. I didn't cite any text of any law. I cited the FBI and their conclusions that no prosecutor would charge Hillary with any crime. And the IG report (under Trump) that found that the FBI's conclusions were both reasonable and based on law and precedent.
You cited your imagination and some batshit conspiracy about 'coups', backed by jack shit.
You make shit up all the time. And?
What is he talking about with this "text of any law"?You also sighted the actual text of the law, and nowhere does it say that ignorance of the law is a valid defense. If you disagree, then post the text where it does. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, gaslighter.And by 'gas lighting', you mean citing Trump on Trump, the FBI, and the IG on the FBI investigation......rather than whatever hapless batshit you make up?
If so, I don't think 'gaslighting' means what you think it means. As you're ignoring the evidence while I'm merely citing it.
Gaslighting - Wikipedia
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
The "batshit" I "makeup" is that actual law, which you posted, dumbass.
When are you going to quote the text that says ignorance of the law is a valid defense? I predict your response will be more gaslighting.
That seems to be a perfect description of what you're doing. I cite actual investigations, actual statements by Trump, actual FBI conclusions, actual court proceedings, actual IG reports.
You cite your imagination, your imagination, your imagination, your imagination and your imagination. And then insist that what you make up must be true.
You're gaslighting. And simply unreliable.
You're gaslighting again. I didn't cite any text of any law. I cited the FBI and their conclusions that no prosecutor would charge Hillary with any crime. And the IG report (under Trump) that found that the FBI's conclusions were both reasonable and based on law and precedent.
You cited your imagination and some batshit conspiracy about 'coups', backed by jack shit.
You make shit up all the time. And?
You highlighted the whole thing, shit for brains. Nowhere does anything you posted say that ignorance of the law is a valid defense.I highlighted the part that you are avoiding. Beside the fact that you are a liar, you are incapable of critical thinking. Skylar posted the law for you. The fact that you don't want to see it, is your denial, no one else's.Skylar posted the law, dumbshit. What don't I know about it?You don't know what you are saying. That is your whole problem.We're done with this thread because you simply refuse to address what I'm saying and continue your gas lighting.You have to be an unimaginable dumbfuck not to know that the President can declassify any document at any time. The procedures on declassification you refer to are the product of executive orders. Which means a President created them. Which means a President can uncreate them with the stroke of a pen, which is what Trump just did.
Who are these "key allies" you refer to? I'm dead certain that they are in reality his enemies.
I'm not referring to key allies. Trump is. You're literally ignoring Trump on his own reasoning and replacing it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the FBI's conclusions regarding with Hillary and replaced it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the IG's conclusions about the FBI investigation and replaced it with your imagination.
You're a bit of a one trick pony. And your imagination is still gloriously useless.
It's difficult to comprehend how stupid you are.What is he talking about with this "text of any law"?You also sighted the actual text of the law, and nowhere does it say that ignorance of the law is a valid defense. If you disagree, then post the text where it does. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, gaslighter.Gaslighting - Wikipedia
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.[1][2]
The "batshit" I "makeup" is that actual law, which you posted, dumbass.
When are you going to quote the text that says ignorance of the law is a valid defense? I predict your response will be more gaslighting.
That seems to be a perfect description of what you're doing. I cite actual investigations, actual statements by Trump, actual FBI conclusions, actual court proceedings, actual IG reports.
You cite your imagination, your imagination, your imagination, your imagination and your imagination. And then insist that what you make up must be true.
You're gaslighting. And simply unreliable.
You're gaslighting again. I didn't cite any text of any law. I cited the FBI and their conclusions that no prosecutor would charge Hillary with any crime. And the IG report (under Trump) that found that the FBI's conclusions were both reasonable and based on law and precedent.
You cited your imagination and some batshit conspiracy about 'coups', backed by jack shit.
You make shit up all the time. And?
I have no idea. Brit says a lot of silly shit.
You might as well ask why a dog licks its own ass. 'Because'.
It's difficult to comprehend how stupid you are.What is he talking about with this "text of any law"?You also sighted the actual text of the law, and nowhere does it say that ignorance of the law is a valid defense. If you disagree, then post the text where it does. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, gaslighter.That seems to be a perfect description of what you're doing. I cite actual investigations, actual statements by Trump, actual FBI conclusions, actual court proceedings, actual IG reports.
You cite your imagination, your imagination, your imagination, your imagination and your imagination. And then insist that what you make up must be true.
You're gaslighting. And simply unreliable.
You're gaslighting again. I didn't cite any text of any law. I cited the FBI and their conclusions that no prosecutor would charge Hillary with any crime. And the IG report (under Trump) that found that the FBI's conclusions were both reasonable and based on law and precedent.
You cited your imagination and some batshit conspiracy about 'coups', backed by jack shit.
You make shit up all the time. And?
I have no idea. Brit says a lot of silly shit.
You might as well ask why a dog licks its own ass. 'Because'.
"Whoever, being entrusted with any document" constitutes transmitting defense information. Trump is knowingly doing that. Which constitutes obstruction. A middle school kid can get this. Educate yourself and stop being an ignorant prick.Please quote the part where it says ignorance of the law is a valid defense,f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, Look nit wit, it isn't that hard. "Whoever, being entrusted with any document" constitutes transmitting defense information. Trump is knowingly doing that. Which constitutes obstruction. A middle school kid can get this. Educate yourself and stop being an ignorant prick.Please quote the text that says intent to break the law is required. If you can't quote it, then admit you're wrong and shut the fuck up.Specifically, how come it doesn't? Telling us it doesn't tells us nothing. You have to explain the specifics of the law, and how it doesn't relate to Trumps order?Read the law, gross negligence in the Espionage Act REQUIRES you knowing that you are committing a felony.... and requires you obtaining the T/S info from ''its proper place''.... neither happened.
Comey was right.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
The text of the law doesn't support your claim, dingbat.
8 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
prev | next
United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—
section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, § 1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
No dumb ass. Do you know what "highlighted" even means?You highlighted the whole thing, shit for brains. Nowhere does anything you posted say that ignorance of the law is a valid defense.I highlighted the part that you are avoiding. Beside the fact that you are a liar, you are incapable of critical thinking. Skylar posted the law for you. The fact that you don't want to see it, is your denial, no one else's.Skylar posted the law, dumbshit. What don't I know about it?You don't know what you are saying. That is your whole problem.We're done with this thread because you simply refuse to address what I'm saying and continue your gas lighting.I'm not referring to key allies. Trump is. You're literally ignoring Trump on his own reasoning and replacing it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the FBI's conclusions regarding with Hillary and replaced it with your imagination.
Just as you ignored the IG's conclusions about the FBI investigation and replaced it with your imagination.
You're a bit of a one trick pony. And your imagination is still gloriously useless.
It's difficult to comprehend how stupid you are.What is he talking about with this "text of any law"?You also sighted the actual text of the law, and nowhere does it say that ignorance of the law is a valid defense. If you disagree, then post the text where it does. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, gaslighter.
You're gaslighting again. I didn't cite any text of any law. I cited the FBI and their conclusions that no prosecutor would charge Hillary with any crime. And the IG report (under Trump) that found that the FBI's conclusions were both reasonable and based on law and precedent.
You cited your imagination and some batshit conspiracy about 'coups', backed by jack shit.
You make shit up all the time. And?
I have no idea. Brit says a lot of silly shit.
You might as well ask why a dog licks its own ass. 'Because'.
Says the deluded gaslighter how keeps citing his imagination to justify increasingly unhinged conspiracy batshit while ignoring Trump's own positions on the release of classified information, the FBI investigation, the IG report, and actual court proceedings.
Sorry, Tin Foil. But you're just unreliable. You citing you means nothing.
Sorry, dumbass, but the law doesn't discuss "obstruction." You claimed that ignorance of the law was a valid defense. So where does the law say that? You have been weaseling for about a dozen posts on that question now."Whoever, being entrusted with any document" constitutes transmitting defense information. Trump is knowingly doing that. Which constitutes obstruction. A middle school kid can get this. Educate yourself and stop being an ignorant prick.Please quote the part where it says ignorance of the law is a valid defense,f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, Look nit wit, it isn't that hard. "Whoever, being entrusted with any document" constitutes transmitting defense information. Trump is knowingly doing that. Which constitutes obstruction. A middle school kid can get this. Educate yourself and stop being an ignorant prick.Please quote the text that says intent to break the law is required. If you can't quote it, then admit you're wrong and shut the fuck up.Specifically, how come it doesn't? Telling us it doesn't tells us nothing. You have to explain the specifics of the law, and how it doesn't relate to Trumps order?The text of the law doesn't support your claim, dingbat.
8 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
prev | next
United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—
section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, § 1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
No one knows what you are talking about? Even you. But the highlighted part clearly points out a breach in the law, when Trump decides he wants to transmit defense information which obstructs justice.
Also, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust. Meaning, "through gross negligence" the information is removed from its "proper place of custody". What here, do you not understand?
That's the claim Comey made to let Hillary off the hook. Are you really that stupid? Did you imagine we were discussing obstruction of justice?No dumb ass. Do you know what "highlighted" even means?You highlighted the whole thing, shit for brains. Nowhere does anything you posted say that ignorance of the law is a valid defense.I highlighted the part that you are avoiding. Beside the fact that you are a liar, you are incapable of critical thinking. Skylar posted the law for you. The fact that you don't want to see it, is your denial, no one else's.Skylar posted the law, dumbshit. What don't I know about it?You don't know what you are saying. That is your whole problem.We're done with this thread because you simply refuse to address what I'm saying and continue your gas lighting.
And where do you come up with this "ignorance of the law" nonsense? You aren't making any sense, and I know why. Because nonsense is your only counter argument left. You have to be able to construct an intelligent rebuttal to be relevant on this forum. You have failed miserably with incoherent gobbly goo.
Which has got me scratching my head, as to why I am even trying to debate this subject with this nit wit?It's difficult to comprehend how stupid you are.What is he talking about with this "text of any law"?You're gaslighting again. I didn't cite any text of any law. I cited the FBI and their conclusions that no prosecutor would charge Hillary with any crime. And the IG report (under Trump) that found that the FBI's conclusions were both reasonable and based on law and precedent.
You cited your imagination and some batshit conspiracy about 'coups', backed by jack shit.
You make shit up all the time. And?
I have no idea. Brit says a lot of silly shit.
You might as well ask why a dog licks its own ass. 'Because'.
Says the deluded gaslighter how keeps citing his imagination to justify increasingly unhinged conspiracy batshit while ignoring Trump's own positions on the release of classified information, the FBI investigation, the IG report, and actual court proceedings.
Sorry, Tin Foil. But you're just unreliable. You citing you means nothing.
Apparently he didn't get the update. Dotard walked it back today, because the FBI and the DNI wasn't going to comply with his orders anyway.
Trump walks back his plan to declassify Russia probe documents
This clown is not only a national embarrassment, he's a national security threat.
Do you understand how intellectually bankrupt you are? The Comey/ Hillary thing has zero to do with anything. That's a different case, and has nothing to do with this one. Get out of your box, and get with the program man. It's embarrassing.That's the claim Comey made to let Hillary off the hook. Are you really that stupid? Did you imagine we were discussing obstruction of justice?No dumb ass. Do you know what "highlighted" even means?You highlighted the whole thing, shit for brains. Nowhere does anything you posted say that ignorance of the law is a valid defense.I highlighted the part that you are avoiding. Beside the fact that you are a liar, you are incapable of critical thinking. Skylar posted the law for you. The fact that you don't want to see it, is your denial, no one else's.Skylar posted the law, dumbshit. What don't I know about it?You don't know what you are saying. That is your whole problem.
And where do you come up with this "ignorance of the law" nonsense? You aren't making any sense, and I know why. Because nonsense is your only counter argument left. You have to be able to construct an intelligent rebuttal to be relevant on this forum. You have failed miserably with incoherent gobbly goo.
Please post a link that shows some indication that Trump is backing down.It's difficult to comprehend how stupid you are.What is he talking about with this "text of any law"?You're gaslighting again. I didn't cite any text of any law. I cited the FBI and their conclusions that no prosecutor would charge Hillary with any crime. And the IG report (under Trump) that found that the FBI's conclusions were both reasonable and based on law and precedent.
You cited your imagination and some batshit conspiracy about 'coups', backed by jack shit.
You make shit up all the time. And?
I have no idea. Brit says a lot of silly shit.
You might as well ask why a dog licks its own ass. 'Because'.
Says the deluded gaslighter how keeps citing his imagination to justify increasingly unhinged conspiracy batshit while ignoring Trump's own positions on the release of classified information, the FBI investigation, the IG report, and actual court proceedings.
Sorry, Tin Foil. But you're just unreliable. You citing you means nothing.
Apparently he didn't get the update. Dotard walked it back today, because the FBI and the DNI wasn't going to comply with his orders anyway.
Trump walks back his plan to declassify Russia probe documents
This clown is not only a national embarrassment, he's a national security threat.
You're debating me because you're a dumbass who can't even remember what the subject of the thread is.Which has got me scratching my head, as to why I am even trying to debate this subject with this nit wit?It's difficult to comprehend how stupid you are.What is he talking about with this "text of any law"?
I have no idea. Brit says a lot of silly shit.
You might as well ask why a dog licks its own ass. 'Because'.
Says the deluded gaslighter how keeps citing his imagination to justify increasingly unhinged conspiracy batshit while ignoring Trump's own positions on the release of classified information, the FBI investigation, the IG report, and actual court proceedings.
Sorry, Tin Foil. But you're just unreliable. You citing you means nothing.
Apparently he didn't get the update. Dotard walked it back today, because the FBI and the DNI wasn't going to comply with his orders anyway.
Trump walks back his plan to declassify Russia probe documents
This clown is not only a national embarrassment, he's a national security threat.
