Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1446618)	3/14/2024 2:56:08 PM
From: Sdgla	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575698

Your world has collapsed & you need to be placed on suicide watch however you’re all alone with nobody to help you. What will you do you TDS infected Xi Putin anti American POS ? Judge Cannon will throw out Dmiths case against Trump because of the DOJ double standard of prosecuting Trump but not Biden Pence & Clinton were not. From FLA courthouse in Trump's classified documents case with a prediction. Robert Hur report and testimony is the biggest elephant in the room. The term "arbitrary enforcement" used frequently by both the defense and Judge Aileen Cannon. Cannon hammered the fact no former president or vice president has been charged under Espionage Act for taking and keeping classified records including national defense information--which represents 32 counts against Trump in Jack Smith's indictment. Prediction: Cannon won't dismiss the case based on the motions debated today--vagueness of Espionage Act and protection under the Presidential Records Act. But it's very likely she will dismiss the case based on selective prosecution, a motion still pending before her. Cannon pressed both defense and Special Counsel to explain when the "crime" of willful retention of national defense information begins--she noted the date in Jack Smith's indictment as to when Trump first violated the Espionage Act. January 20, 2021, the day he left office thread#showTweet" data-screenname="julie_kelly2" data-tweet="1768310989403930891" dir="auto" style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: charter, Georgia, Cambria, "times new roman", Times, serif; font-size: 1.1875rem; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.003em; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; overflow-wrap: break-word; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); cursor: pointer; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Jay Bratt, representing special counsel office, confirmed the "crime" began that day because as a former president, he was entitled to retain the documents. Cannon again asked for historical precedent as to when a former president or vice president faced charges for similar conduct. Bratt of course said there is none. She added "vice president" on numerous occasions for a reason--Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all skated on criminal charges. Trump is the only one who has not. Cannon: "Arbitrary enforcement...is featuring in this case." Cannon also addressed the "foreseeability" as to Trump's awareness he was committing a crime by keeping classified/national defense information. "Given the constellation of what happened before"--meaning no criminal prosecution of former presidents including Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and vice presidents--Cannon suggested Trump could have reasonably expected he was in the clear. thread#showTweet" data-screenname="julie_kelly2" data-tweet="1768312398698422359" dir="auto" style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: charter, Georgia, Cambria, "times new roman", Times, serif; font-size: 1.1875rem; line-height: 1.58; letter-spacing: -0.003em; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; overflow-wrap: break-word; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); cursor: pointer; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Also of interest: Jay Bratt claiming there is no official process for a president to obtain or keep a security clearance. His argument is Trump's clearance automatically expired at the end of this term--which contradicts how former government officials maintained clearances long after their service ended. Trump's elimination of John Brennan's clearance was raised. But there is a problem. The Dept. of Energy, learning of Smith's indictment against Trump in the summer of 2023, retroactively revoked Trump's "Q" security clearance. Bratt says the government has emails and a draft memo to revoke Trump's clearance. Cannon's counterargument is--but if there is no formal process for authorizing or removing a president's security clearance--why did DOE need to memorialize it post-indictment. Bratt didn't really have an answer.