• NOS4A2
    6.2k


    You can’t name a single return on investment. Iran gets everything, United States gets nothing. A shoddy deal.
  • Fooloso4
    3.7k
    I know that he was not in fact quoting Berman in the content you provided.NOS4A2

    Based on what you have said you have made it clear once again that you did not read the article. What do you hope to gain by providing further evidence of it?

    when Iran was busy killing US soldiers in IraqNOS4A2

    So, because Iranian soldiers were busy killing US soldiers while US soldiers were busy killing Iranian soldiers (it's called "war") efforts to salvage a nuclear arms deal made by several world powers should not have taken place? The allied interests of the world, not the unilateral interests of Trump or what he thinks are the interests of the US are at issue.
  • NOS4A2
    6.2k


    Based on what you have said you have made it clear once again that you did not read the article. What do you hope to gain by providing further evidence of it?

    I don’t care about the article or the book of some establishment bureaucrat. I read what you quoted and what you tried to sell from it. The suggestion of yours and the reviewer that Trump’s concerns were partisan is still nonsense. The idea that using the FBI to raid political opponents over national archives disputes is in any way comparable to “pressuring” federal prosecutors to do their job is also nonsense.

    So, because Iranian soldiers were busy killing US soldiers while US soldiers were busy killing Iranian soldiers (it's called "war") efforts to salvage a nuclear arms deal made by several world powers should not have taken place? The allied interests of the world, not the unilateral interests of Trump or what he thinks are the interests of the US are at issue.

    The efforts of former bureaucrats to undermine the president of the United States and coddle one of America’s adversaries while it was killing American soldiers should not have taken place. I don’t give a straw for the “allied interests of the world”.
  • Fooloso4
    3.7k
    I don’t care about the article or the book of some establishment bureaucrat. I read what you quoted and what you tried to sell from it.NOS4A2

    You admit you didn't read it but that did not prevent you from saying:

    This is a good little reminder, despite the breathtaking stupidity of the review.NOS4A2

    I won't say what stands as a good little reminder of breathtaking stupidity.

    I did not try to sell anything from it. But, of course, you would not know that since you did not read the review and what it says in distinction from what you assume I rather than the review said. The review speaks for itself.According to the review Berman describes himself as a Rockefeller Republican and that during the 2016 presidential primary season, Mr. Berman volunteered for Mr. Trump’s campaign and later for his transition committee. Unlike you, Berman has first hand insider knowledge of the things he wrote about.

    The idea that using the FBI to raid political opponents over national archives ...NOS4A2

    It is not simply that the material belongs to the national archives, it is that the material contains classified documents. Having them in his personal possession raises national security issues. The fact that he did not protect them from a whole host of people raises national security issues. Is it that you are not able to see why it is of concern, or are you just pretending not to?

    The efforts of former bureaucrats to undermine the president of the United States ...NOS4A2

    If someone were to read this without having read what comes before it they might assume you are talking about Trump.

    I don’t give a straw for the “allied interests of the world”.NOS4A2

    Spoken like a true Trumpster. The allied interests of the world are our interests. It is not as if we are separate and safe from a nuclear threat that only affects the rest of the world.
  • NOS4A2
    6.2k


    It is not simply that the material belongs to the national archives, it is that the material contains classified documents. Having them in his personal possession raises national security issues. The fact that he did not protect them from a whole host of people raises national security issues. Is it that you are not able to see why it is of concern, or are you just pretending not to?

    I am not concerned. He was the president of the United States, the commander in chief, and had the unilateral power to do whatever he wanted with those documents, including taking them home. What concerns me is a political DOJ and FBI raiding a former president’s house and stealing these documents, among other personal items.

    If someone were to read this without having read what comes before it they might assume you are talking about Trump.

    And they’d be wrong.

    Spoken like a true Trumpster. The allied interests of the world are our interests. It is not as if we are separate and safe from a nuclear threat that only affects the rest of the world.

    They’re your interests, maybe. Trump has done more for peace in the Middle East in one term than decades of your allied interests.
  • Michael
    11.8k
    It is not simply that the material belongs to the national archives, it is that the material contains classified documents. Having them in his personal possession raises national security issues. The fact that he did not protect them from a whole host of people raises national security issues. Is it that you are not able to see why it is of concern, or are you just pretending not to?Fooloso4

    I am not concerned. He was the president of the United States, the commander in chief, and had the unilateral power to do whatever he wanted with those documents, including taking them home.NOS4A2

    "He was legally allowed to do it, therefore there is no national security issue".

    That's a fallacious inference.

    And he had no legal right to retain them, or to defy the subpoena for their return, after losing the Presidency.
  • Fooloso4
    3.7k
    I am not concerned.NOS4A2

    Well that settles it. NOS is not concerned. We can all rest assured.

    He was the president of the United States, the commander in chief, and had the unilateral power to do whatever he wanted with those documentsNOS4A2

    The commander in chief is not an emperor. He cannot do whatever he wants with classified documents. He cannot give them or sell them to Russia or China or use them as leverage against his enemies.

    If someone were to read this without having read what comes before it they might assume you are talking about Trump.

    And they’d be wrong.
    NOS4A2

    Only because they did not notice you were not referring to Trump, not because it does not describe what he continues to do.

    They’re your interests, maybe.NOS4A2

    They are the interests of anyone who is able to see the threat of a nuclear Iran. On the one hand you point to Iran killing US soldiers but on the other pretend there is no danger with them being a nuclear power.
  • Fooloso4
    3.7k


    He is now pushing for a 90 day review process of the documents. Run the clock out until after the midterm elections.
  • NOS4A2
    6.2k


    He was legally allowed to do it, therefore there is no national security issue

    That’s not what I said, though. I said I’m not concerned; and I’m not concerned until I have reason to be concerned; and because he had those powers there is no reason to believe something untoward or nefarious has happened.

    At any rate, “national security” is an excuse to abuse power. So many lives and livelihoods have been sacrificed on that alter. You can almost see the foam at the mouth of chickenhawks whenever they invoke it, and you can predict with decent accuracy that someone is about to lose their rights. I don’t like thinking in imposter terms such as that.
  • Xtrix
    4.1k
    Just a reminder that Trump has been lying about the election for nearly two years and provoked an insurrection.

    The quicker they put this degenerate crook in prison, the better.
  • Merkwurdichliebe
    2.2k
    Just a reminder that Trump has been lying about the election for nearly two years and provoked an insurrection.

    The quicker they put this degenerate crook in prison, the better.
    Xtrix

    Has to be proven...never will happen
  • Benkei
    5.9k
    Yes, you're an idiot. We know that. It wasn't a trade deal. What was the purpose of the JCPOA?
  • ssu
    6.3k
    You can’t name a single return on investment. Iran gets everything, United States gets nothing. A shoddy deal.NOS4A2
    Another thing Trump said he would deliver and didn't do.

    Yet far better than the surrender deal that Trump did with the Taliban. I mean talk about backstabbing your own ally you created.

    I guess North Korea and China would happily have during the Korean war accepted a similar treaty where they would have stopped attacking US troops and continued the fight only against the South Koreans. I guess with that kind of "Trump Peace Deal" we surely would have a united Korea with a capital in Pjongyang in the early 1950's.

    Nobody could then even fathom the idea of there being K-Pop and (South) Korean electronics.
  • Michael
    11.8k
    Judge unseals less redacted version of affidavit used for Mar-a-Lago search warrant

    It was previously known that Trump's lawyers provided one envelope to investigators, which contained 38 unique documents with classification markings, according to court filings. But the newly lifted redactions in the search warrant affidavit indicate that some of those classified files contained markings for "HCS, SI and FISA," according to court filings made public on Tuesday.

    These classification markings indicate that the documents were connected to extremely sensitive government programs. "HCS" refers to human sources, or spies, that often work with the CIA. "SI" refers to signals intercepts that are typically handled by the National Security Agency. And "FISA" refers to domestic surveillance and wiretaps related to counterintelligence.
  • Michael
    11.8k
    Durham Inquiry Appears to Wind Down as Grand Jury Expires

    Anyone remember this thing?

    The special counsel appointed by the Trump administration to examine the Russia investigation seems to be wrapping up its work with no further charges in store.

    When John H. Durham was assigned by the Justice Department in 2019 to examine the origins of the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, President Donald J. Trump and his supporters expressed a belief that the inquiry would prove that a “deep state” conspiracy including top Obama-era officials had worked to sabotage him.

    Now Mr. Durham appears to be winding down his three-year inquiry without anything close to the results Mr. Trump was seeking. The grand jury that Mr. Durham has recently used to hear evidence has expired, and while he could convene another, there are currently no plans to do so, three people familiar with the matter said.

    ...

    Mr. Durham and his team used a grand jury in Washington to indict Michael Sussmann, a prominent cybersecurity lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Sussmann was indicted last year on a charge of making a false statement to the F.B.I. at a meeting in which he shared a tip about potential connections between computers associated with Mr. Trump and a Kremlin-linked Russian bank.

    Mr. Sussmann was acquitted of that charge at trial in May.

    A grand jury based in the Eastern District of Virginia last year indicted a Russia analyst who had worked with Christopher Steele, a former British spy who was the author of a dossier of rumors and unproven assertions about Mr. Trump. The dossier played no role in the F.B.I.’s decision to begin examining the ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. It was used in an application to obtain a warrant to surveil a Trump campaign associate.

    The analyst, Igor Danchenko, who is accused of lying to federal investigators, goes on trial next month in Alexandria, Va.

    In the third case, Mr. Durham’s team negotiated a plea deal with an F.B.I. lawyer whom an inspector general had accused of doctoring an email used in preparation for a wiretap renewal application. The plea deal resulted in no prison time.
  • Benkei
    5.9k
    What's worse is that the Iranians were sticking to the JCPOA as verified multiple times by the IAEA. Then Trump torpedoes the deal, the Europeans didn't manage to create a backdoor to avoid the US sanctions so the Iranians saw no reason to stick to the deal. The Iranians now want a better deal now, which is part a more hardline regime and part a "since you'll fuck us at any time, we want to maximise the benefits for as long as it lasts". And all this of course is great for stability in the region. So yeah, let's talk about the benefits for the USA because it has zero interest in stability. :yawn:
  • 180 Proof
    9.8k
    @NOS4A2

    Mealwhile on Earth Prime .... :rofl:
  • ssu
    6.3k
    So true.

    The truth is that there's really only a few things Trump got right. Like talking to the Germans how being dependent on Russian energy is a bad idea.
  • NOS4A2
    6.2k


    I guess we could have given them another 20 years and another couple trillion dollars to get our “allies” ready to stand on their own feet, but really, no amount of counterfactuals can justify more intervention there.
  • NOS4A2
    6.2k


    Trump didn’t torpedo the deal. He withdrew from it citing Iran’s failed compliance. Now Iran continues to violate it right in Europe’s face and Biden is considering going back to it. Laughable.
  • Benkei
    5.9k
    For anyone with half a brain:

    Trump torpedoed the deal because he refused to recertify the suspension of sanctions while it's on record the Iranians complied - just search for the IAEA reports. Trump was unhappy with the suspension of sanctions which he thought were not "proportionate and appropriate"; Iranian compliance had fuck all to do with it.

    After Trump torpedoed it the Iranians still kept to the deal until it became clear the EU wasn't willing to circumvent the US sanctions. Only then did they stop following the deal, since there simply was no deal anymore as the US broke it and the other parties did nothing to alleviate the negative consequences for Iran when the US broke that contract.

    The fact is, the JCPOA limited Iran’s nuclear activities and was ensuring Iran would never become a nuclear weapons power as long as it was upheld.

    The fact is, after Trump torpedoed the deal Iran has moved closer to nuclear weapons.
  • TiredThinker
    575
    Question. Is it true that even the president can't declassified documents that contain information about our nuclear arsenal? Might require congressional approval also maybe?
  • Michael
    11.8k
    Is it true that even the president can't declassified documents that contain information about our nuclear arsenal?TiredThinker

    It doesn't even matter. It can be illegal to possess documents even if they're not classified. Tax records are not classified, but that doesn't mean a President can just take someone's tax records.

    None of the three laws mentioned in the warrant to search Mar-a-Lago concerned the classification status of the documents. They were:

    18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

    18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

    18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

    To answer your specific question, anything related to nuclear weaponry is considered restricted data, which falls outside the scope of ordinary classification (established by Executive Order 13526), and as such information about nuclear weaponry can be both classified and restricted data. Regarding restricted data the President's "declassification" powers are limited to that of adjudication when the Department of Defence and the Atomic Energy Commission disagree. He cannot unilaterally "declassify" restricted data at-will.

    In addition to both the aforementioned Espionage Act and Atomic Energy Act, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act prevents the unauthorized disclosure of the identities of spies, irrespective of "classification" status.

    Although, perhaps tellingly, Trump's lawyers haven't actually claimed in court that the documents were declassified. They've only said that the FBI hasn't proven that they haven't been declassified.
  • Relativist
    1.8k
    Question. Is it true that even the president can't declassified documents that contain information about our nuclear arsenal? Might require congressional approval also maybe?TiredThinker
    The Trump team has asserted the Constitution imbues a President with absolute control over document classification. If prosecution came down to this, it would need to be decided by SCOTUS. But as Michael said, the official classification status is irrelevant to the laws in question.
  • Relativist
    1.8k
    rump torpedoed the deal Iran has moved closer to nuclear weapons.Benkei

    Yep. And we should remember that when he was running for President in 2016, he promised he'd negotiate a better deal with Iran, "A Trump presidency will force the Iranians back to the bargaining table to make a much better deal." Of course, this didn't happen.

    He also said, "no deal is better than a bad deal" - and I don't see how anyone could claim we've been better off by abandoning the deal.
  • Michael
    11.8k
    Donald Trump, 3 of his children sued for business fraud by New York AG

    New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing former president Donald Trump, three of his grown children and executives at his company of flagrantly manipulating property valuations to deceive lenders, insurance brokers and tax authorities into giving them better rates on bank loans and insurance policies and to reduce their tax liability.

    The 222-page civil complaint asks the New York Supreme Court to bar Trump, as well as Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump, from serving as executives at any company in New York, and to bar the Trump Organization from acquiring any commercial real estate or receiving loans from any New York-registered financial institution for five years.

    It seeks to recover more than $250 million in what James’s office says are ill-gotten gains received through the alleged deceptive practices. While the lawsuit itself is not a criminal prosecution, James (D) said she has referred possible violations of federal law to the Justice Department and the IRS.
  • ssu
    6.3k
    I guess we could have given them another 20 years and another couple trillion dollars to get our “allies” ready to stand on their own feet, but really, no amount of counterfactuals can justify more intervention there.NOS4A2
    Afghanistan was wrong from the start.

    Iraq was wrong from the start.

    At least with Iraq it was Trump that got finally the GOP to talk the truth that the reasons to invade Iraq in 2003 were bullshit.

    Yet if you think so about Afghanistan, what's then different with Iraq? The US is still there. But the country is quite on the cusp of exploding again. Shouldn't then the US leave also there?
  • Pierre-Normand
    1.7k
    At least with Iraq it was Trump that got finally the GOP to talk the truth that the reasons to invade Iraq in 2003 were bullshit.ssu

    Although Trump himself hardly ever made any mention of those reasons. He savaged George W Bush but he lavished praise on Saddam Hussein. He's an isolationist and, as such, isn't opposed to foreign interventions on the ground of them being unjustified but rather on the ground of them being costly. He's a big advocate of runaway military spending, arm deals with rogue powers and runaway arm races. He explicitly scrapped arm control treaties because he loves arm races. He's just opposed to spending any of the money generated by those endeavors. All that money rightly belongs to the military-industrial complex and to the politicians (including himself) who accept their bribes, why spend any more of it?
  • 180 Proof
    9.8k
    A very powerful woman tells a very weak man (and, by extension, his very weak-minded supporters):
    Claiming you have money that you
    do not have does not amount to the art of the deal. It’s the art of the steal.
    — Letitia James, New York State Attorney General
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/21/trump-new-york-investigation-ivanka-donald-eric

    Yeah, stop the steal and lock Individual-1 up asap! :victory: :mask:

    update:

    More good news today. :up:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/21/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-records-hold-lifted
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.