The view from the bunker.

Everything you wrote I just received in a email.

 

18 USC 793

"(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..."

Yeah. You read the laws. Sure you did...lol

 

He works for Planned Parenthood, so which party do you think he belongs to?...lol

But, back to the question: is he wrong?

 

So you refuse to honestly answer the question? Not really a surprise. And why would anyone rational be scared of an event that happens on a predetermined schedule since the planet acquired a moon? Might there be some idiot out there with an interest in trying to take advantage of the15 minutes or so of near dark to do something nefarious? possibly.

 

Being a Republican doesn't negate one's rights.

 

He's one person WBK, he speaks for himself, focus man. Bunker mentality got Hitler dead brah.

 

Your refusal to answer the question proves my point. Thank you for playing...lol

 

Nor does being a democrat...And Trump hasn't Broken any laws.

 

You keep reaching for a lifeline but end up with straw WBK, don't blame me for that brah. Personal responsibility brah....cornerstone of conservativism. , Ohh, and Trump's not a republican he's for Trump over country.

 

Not only have I read it. I've addressed exactly this position in the past. Go back and look at what Comer did in the Clinton case. Before making a decision, he looked at COURT PRECIDENCE, for when and how this law has worked in court in the past. He observed that no one in modern history (perhaps even ever, I'd have to check) had been prosecuted under the "gross negligence" clause. He knew courts would not look to kindly to him trying to convict with Clinton being the sole exception and that it would never make it past the grand jury without that. The same remains true for Biden. You should try reading up on how that investigation went, and not just the parts that Fox clipped for you.

Yes. Intent and deception make a difference in the law. Your desire to pretend it doesn't exist is completely immaterial. The facts don't care about your feelings.

You are going to have to do better than copy/pasting excuses from Breitbart that any critically thinking person can easily debunk. You are dealing with someone who actually reads.

 

In order:
Only those convicted of a crime that routinely gets a prison sentence should be sent to prison. All others (and most) should go free.

The grand jurors were not corrupted, just mislead.

It is pretty hard to not de-legtimize the quasi-illegal star chamber-like Jan 6 committee.

A decent probability of both although not related.

Man made global warming is not a hoax just, hyperbolically and religiously overblown as to its extent and its deleterious effects.

Yes it does.

Death threats against public officials in any case are of major consequences.. I don't know about "other intimidations" because I don't know what those are.

Yes it does.

Illegal immigrants are not sub-human vermin. Many are scumbags and the rest simply criminals.

With extreme high probability, yes. Although prosecutors don't really follow grand juries directions.

Yes it is.

I don't know any Democrats that say women have penises.

True.

 

The laws say you are wrong. And democrats aren't above the law. Wasn't one just caught secretly working for Egypt or something?

 

The law says no such thing...Democrats do but Democrats are not the law, though I'm quite certain these lawfare idiots wish other wise.

 

The law says it is illegal to repeatedly misrepresent your financial statements in New York. The law says you can't steal and conceal national security documents. The law says that the fake elector scheme was illegal.

 

You said that "intent" was the only legal standard.

 

Factoring in precedence, it is. And not only have people not been convicted on the gross negligence, but some courts have ruled that doing so would likely be unconstitutional. Yes. Intent makes a difference.

 

Show us the precedence. Don't repeat what Comey said.

 

Well it would help if you had actually bothered to state them in a coherent logical fashion rather than trying to frame them for ridicule,

 

And yes, people have been charged with "gross negligence".

https://www.politico.com/blogs/unde...comey-cited-in-clinton-email-testimony-225266

 

and that if you disarm honest people, violent criminals won't rob or murder. Or you can tax your way to prosperity

 

being a democrat doesn't entitle you to the wealth someone else earned

 

Nope, nor did the judge prove he did he made assumptions based on information as to the value of Trump properties based on property taxes when there is no state in the union since prop thirteen sets said values with in light years of the actual value. On that fact alone onagers ruling will be overturned on appeal and his money refunded and almost certain both he and the DA ought to be censured for what is clearly a case of prosecutorial misconduct.

 

Can you provide any evidence of unjust convictions? BTW, Trump didn't make any distinctions when he said he would pardon the convicted Jan. 6 "hostages."

By your metric the charges against Hunter should be dropped.

 

That's a derivative of the "welfare queen" narrative from the error, sorry, era of Reagan. You realize lot's of white Repubs get government assistance, right?

 

Hmmmmm ... where to start?

I'll just cover the most relevant stuff, starting with asking you to please link to proof that anyone was sentenced to four years in prison for trespassing.

Please define "a good many." How many? Or what percentage of the whole? Please link to proof.

Prosecutors don't call grand juries into being. They make a request of the applicable court (where that trial will take place if charges are brought). The court assembles a grand jury from available volunteers. Some of this differs from one state or locality to another, but such jurors usually volunteer for long periods, from three months to a year. Not only do they serve on cases that were requested and approved, they also are free to choose topics of investigation and focus on, for example, a business's accounting history where major fraud is suspected. Sometimes the DAs get their marching orders from the court, not the other way around.

The prosecutor does not get to decide everything the grand jury sees. He or she will start with everything they have that they believe will prove their case, but the grand jury can request further information, and not necessarily from the prosecutor.

On the large number of border crossings, take into consideration the fact that we haven't had this much human migration all over the world since WWII. The border has been a disaster area since I was a kid in Southern California in the 50s and 60s. Politicians on all sides either can't fix it due to gross incompetence and a seriously myopic view, or won't fix it because it's a nice political hot potato to toss around during a campaign.