9th Circuit Refuses to Reinstate the Revised Musclim Ban

[time4fun]

The 9th Circuit today (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/9th-circuit-travel-ban/index.html)followed the 4th Circuit in refusing to reinstate most of the revised Muslim ban:


"We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress," the judges wrote.
The judges largely affirmed a Hawaii judge's decision from March which found the core provisions of the revised executive order -- temporarily blocking all refugees and foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US -- likely violated the Constitution because its primary purpose was to disfavor Muslims.

Oh, and Methais dear, that would be yet another thing I was right about. Meanwhile the conservative clowns of PC were wrong.

Again.


Full Decision here. (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/general/cases_of_interest/17-15589%20per%20curiam%20opinion.pdf)

[Wrathbringer]

The 9th Circuit today (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/9th-circuit-travel-ban/index.html)followed the 4th Circuit in refusing to reinstate most of the revised Muslim ban:



Oh, and Methais dear, that would be yet another thing I was right about. Meanwhile the conservative clowns of PC were wrong.

Again.


Full Decision here. (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/general/cases_of_interest/17-15589%20per%20curiam%20opinion.pdf)

The nutty ninth is as retarded as you are.

[Fallen]

Did anyone think it'd pass at this point?

[time4fun]

Only on this forum.

Not surprising- PK recently argued that intent as a legal factor was invented for Clinton. We're not dealing with particularly sophisticated legal minds here.

What's interesting about the decision issued today is that it doesn't really touch on the President's tweets or the Establishment clause (that I've seen so far- I'm not quite done reading it yet though).

It was issued primarily on the grounds that it violated the INA and Presidential authority.

[ClydeR]

It hardly matters. The Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue in just a few days.

[time4fun]

It hardly matters. The Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue in just a few days.

SCOTUS's next step is to decide whether or not to pick up the case. When you say it will "weigh in"- there's only way they would directly weigh in at that point- which would be to let the rulings stand.

But the 4th Circuit and the 9th Circuit made their decisions with different reasoning. So there's a pretty good chance they'll pick up the case. (Unless they decide that since it expires soon, there's nothing to pick up- which they may very well do).

[ClydeR]

There is almost no chance that the Supreme Court will decline to hear the case. The immediate issue is whether or not the travel ban should go into effect while the court is considering the matter. That issue will be resolved any day now. I'm guessing on Thursday.

[time4fun]

There is almost no chance that the Supreme Court will decline to hear the case. The immediate issue is whether or not the travel ban should go into effect while the court is considering the matter. That issue will be resolved any day now. I'm guessing on Thursday.

If the law is no longer valid, that may be enough. Though the fact that the 4th Circuit decision was appealed by the administration may be enough. I'm fuzzy on how temporality plays into this. I haven't looked up the case law.

[Androidpk]

PK recently argued that intent as a legal factor was invented for Clinton. We're not dealing with particularly sophisticated legal minds here.

It was most definitely used as an excuse not to prosecute Hillary. There is a history of people being charged for mishandling classified information and intent was never a factor in those cases.

[time4fun]

It was most definitely used as an excuse not to prosecute Hillary. There is a history of people being charged for mishandling classified information and intent was never a factor in those cases.

The Espionage Act (Which NEVER had a snowball's chance in hell of being relevant, btw) literally included intent in the wording of the statute. So it's not an "excuse", and I promise mens rea has mattered since the beginning of US law.

Please present cases of mishandling classified information where a conviction resulted despite no intent to mishandle having been established.

[Parkbandit]

Oh, and Methais dear, that would be yet another thing I was right about. Meanwhile the conservative clowns of PC were wrong.

Again.


What? Who said the Nutty 9th would overturn it? You're delusional.

But hey, I completely understand your need to count this as you were right..

[Shaps]

The Espionage Act (Which NEVER had a snowball's chance in hell of being relevant, btw) literally included intent in the wording of the statute. So it's not an "excuse", and I promise mens rea has mattered since the beginning of US law.

Please present cases of mishandling classified information where a conviction resulted despite no intent to mishandle having been established.

It's funny though.. in any classes/training that you are given (every year btw - just so the government knows we are aware of our responsibility).. everything that Clinton did is taught as an indicator and a reportable offense to superiors. In the old days, it would have completely opened an espionage investigation. If a person said, "awww.. I didn't mean anything by it", they'd be looked at even harder.. due to the conscious decisions made to implement such a system, especially with the amount of money that passed through family hands and affiliated businesses.

Always been fucked up how we apply the laws between our "elected" officials and the "menial" handlers (sarcasm) of our sensitive information. Laws for some, not for all.. right?

[time4fun]

It's funny though.. in any classes/training that you are given (every year btw - just so the government knows we are aware of our responsibility).. everything that Clinton did is taught as an indicator and a reportable offense to superiors. In the old days, it would have completely opened an espionage investigation. If a person said, "awww.. I didn't mean anything by it", they'd be looked at even harder.. due to the conscious decisions made to implement such a system, especially with the amount of money that passed through family hands and affiliated businesses.

Always been fucked up how we apply the laws between our "elected" officials and the "menial" handlers (sarcasm) of our sensitive information. Laws for some, not for all.. right?

The real difference here is administrative penalties vs criminal violations.

Violating administrative policies is literally just violating your company's IT rules. It's not a criminal act, and you can't go after someone who doesn't work there any longer. (Also she was an original classification authority, so there's a whole argument there).

mens rea applies to criminal statutes only, and it applies to every criminal statute. That's the whole crux of the insanity plea- if there's no understanding that you did something wrong (or reasonable expectation that you should have known) , then legally there's no crime. Criminal statutes regarding mishandling of classified information all require you to have willfully mishandled. The people who get in trouble are the ones who knew what they had and knew what they were doing with it.

[Shaps]

What? Who said the Nutty 9th would overturn it? You're delusional.

But hey, I completely understand your need to count this as you were right..

All it tells me, is the Courts assumed intent.. versus.. the law as written.

If that's where we are finally getting to in our court system, then yea.. we're pretty screwed.

But I've been saying we have 100-150 years tops before we're just another third world nation... unless somehow the United Federation is formed and we really do invent Warp Drive... Please baby Jesus let this happen!!!.

[Shaps]

The real difference here is administrative penalties vs criminal violations.

Violating administrative policies is literally just violating your company's IT rules. It's not a criminal act, and you can't go after someone who doesn't work there any longer. (Also she was an original classification authority, so there's a whole argument there).

mens rea applies to criminal statutes only, and it applies to every criminal statute. That's the whole crux of the insanity plea- if there's no understanding that you did something wrong (or reasonable expectation that you should have known) , then legally there's no crime.

If you think Hillary didn't know what she did is wrong, then you are nuts. The amount of briefings, read on/offs, security reminders, memorandums and daily reinforcement of handling classified information that is shoved down our throats is absurd.

She was not violating "administrative policy".. she violated law. As in, you can be punished up to 5 years in prison and $50000 dollars per individual violation.. regardless of "intent" if it's so deemed by the authorities. Every person that's ever worked in that arena knows this. It's why we all found it so ludicrous...

Hence.. my anger at the split in how "elected officials" are treated versus the "rank and file" of our Government. The idea you compared what she did to someone working at an "IT company" is absurd and only highlights that distinction. It's aggravating to watch and have to live through honestly.

[time4fun]

All it tells me, is the Courts assumed intent.. versus.. the law as written.

If that's where we are finally getting to in our court system, then yea.. we're pretty screwed.

But I've been saying we have 100-150 years tops before we're just another third world nation... unless somehow the United Federation is formed and we really do invent Warp Drive... Please baby Jesus let this happen!!!.

You should read the 9th Circuit Court decision. Your assessment of it is inaccurate.

It was decided on purely prima facie statutory terms, and Trump's intent was a very small part of the analysis. There's existing case law that basically instructs lower courts that if they are facing both a statutory issue and a constitutional one to focus on the statutory issue first and foremost and only touch upon Constitutional issues if necessary. The 9th Circuit determined that the INA was enough to render the EO unenforceable. So that was basically it. Trump's own words came up once or twice, but it was largely decided on the fact that the Administration was unable to produce any evidence that the EO genuinely tied to practical national security concerns- which is required by the INA. (Also that discrimination against people based on national origin is expressly prohibited under the INA)

And, again, intent is always relevant. The 9th Circuit didn't feel it needed to bother with intent in this case because the EO failed to meet the requirements laid out by the INA, but it's never a "special" thing to consider. It is fundamental to determining legality- as much as lay people like to pretend otherwise when it suits them.

[time4fun]

What? Who said the Nutty 9th would overturn it? You're delusional.

But hey, I completely understand your need to count this as you were right..

Actually, Mr Troll, I argued several months ago that both EOs violated the INA's prohibitions against discriminating based on national origin and pointed out repeatedly that neither EO's stated purpose was related to its enforcement mechanism.

You may recognize those things as the basis of the 9th Circuit decision today.

No, just kidding. You never read it and probably wouldn't understand it even if you tried.

[Tgo01]

time4fun's boyfriend works in a law firm so she knows her shit.

[time4fun]

If you think Hillary didn't know what she did is wrong, then you are nuts. The amount of briefings, read on/offs, security reminders, memorandums and daily reinforcement of handling classified information that is shoved down our throats is absurd.

She was not violating "administrative policy".. she violated law. As in, you can be punished up to 5 years in prison and $50000 dollars per individual violation.. regardless of "intent" if it's so deemed by the authorities. Every person that's ever worked in that arena knows this. It's why we all found it so ludicrous...

Hence.. my anger at the split in how "elected officials" are treated versus the "rank and file" of our Government. The idea you compared what she did to someone working at an "IT company" is absurd and only highlights that distinction. It's aggravating to watch and have to live through honestly.

Then the FBI must be nuts. Because that's exactly what their career prosecutors thought. Comey confirmed this under oath last week.

There was nothing about the Clinton case that came close to criminal mishandling of classified information. I know the right just desperately needs to believe otherwise, but the Director of the FBI- who oversaw the investigation- just said under oath that you're wrong.

Go read the Espionage Act provisions that the right tried to say she was in violation of. There's nothing even close to criminal. It's time to move on.

We've got more serious legal matters going on with the current administration that are more deserving of our time.

[Androidpk]

The career prosecutors that didn't want people to know it was an actual criminal investigation? The ones that didn't allow the FBI to issue warrants for evidence collecting? The ones that allowed one suspect to sit in on another suspects deposition, where no one was under oath and memos weren't taken?

yup, sounds legit!

[time4fun]

The career prosecutors that didn't want people to know it was an actual criminal investigation? The ones that didn't allow the FBI to issue warrants for evidence collecting? The ones that allowed one suspect to sit in on another suspects deposition, where no one was under oath and memos weren't taken?

yup, sounds legit!

You don't get to talk until you can provide examples of the cases you referenced earlier where someone was convicted of criminally mishandling classified information despite no intent to mishandle having been established.

Still waiting. I mean, you're such an expert here.

It should be easy.

[Androidpk]

You don't get to talk until you can provide examples of the cases you referenced earlier where someone was convicted of criminally mishandling classified information despite no intent to mishandle having been established.

Still waiting. I mean, you're such an expert here.

It should be easy.

You're welcome to search through the Clinton Email thread for all the examples that were linked there.

[Shaps]

Then the FBI must be nuts. Because that's exactly what their career prosecutors thought. Comey confirmed this under oath last week.

There was nothing about the Clinton case that came close to criminal mishandling of classified information. I know the right just desperately needs to believe otherwise, but the Director of the FBI- who oversaw the investigation- just said under oath that you're wrong.

Go read the Espionage Act provisions that the right tried to say she was in violation of. There's nothing even close to criminal. It's time to move on.

We've got more serious legal matters going on with the current administration that are more deserving of our time.

The FBI is nuts for what they did. She should have been prosecuted. She did criminally mishandle classified information. I don't have to believe it, because this is an area I deal with on a daily basis. You keep referencing the espionage act. I never said she would be tried for espionage.. I said an espionage investigation would have been opened. She would have been found not guilty of espionage... that does not mean she is innocent of breaking all the other laws that apply to handling of classified information and should have been charged and judged just like every other person that deals with these matters.

Again, to reiterate... the double standard is what angers most people in this line of work. The fact that someone would have held the highest office after such violations most found insane. But you're right.. it's not important what our elected officials do.

Oh wait, apparently it is now that an (R) is next to their name and you politically disagree with them.

How about you move on and apply your "logic" to everyone, not just who you like or dislike.

[Androidpk]

If Donald was a Democrat she'd be okay with everything he did. That's just how partisan hacks roll.

[time4fun]

You're welcome to search through the Clinton Email thread for all the examples that were linked there.

So you have nothing.

And I know you have nothing because there are ZERO cases of someone being convicted of criminal mishandling of classified information where intent to mishandle wasn't established. (Or "gross negligence", which- in addition to some other high bar components- requires you to establish that someone should have reasonably known what they were doing was criminal- which is always a part of establishing intent)

The laws in this case require it. And if you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd have learned that last year.

But you're so mired in BS sources that you recognize reality if it smack you in the face.

[Shaps]

Time4Fun,
Just google SF312, read it... it's pretty plain. Has since been updated from what you'll find on the net, but says the same thing pretty much. Every.. and I mean EVERY person that deals with classified information must sign one of these... This is just one example.

A bunch of other documents and signatures are required to further legally bind you in case any disclosure of classified information occurs.

Hillary signed everything that I have in my career, if not more because of the positions she's held in Government.. she knew. Her claiming ignorance is just a sad joke on the American people.

[Androidpk]

So you have nothing.

And I know you have nothing because there are ZERO cases of someone being convicted of criminal mishandling of classified information where intent to mishandle wasn't established. (Or "gross negligence", which- in addition to some other high bar components- requires you to establish that someone should have reasonably known what they were doing was criminal- which is always a part of establishing intent)

The laws in this case require it. And if you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd have learned that last year.

But you're so mired in BS sources that you recognize reality if it smack you in the face.

Like I said, examples were posted numerous times last year and as always you dismissed each and every one of them, just like you do whenever your "reality" is challenged.

[time4fun]

The FBI is nuts for what they did. She should have been prosecuted. She did criminally mishandle classified information. I don't have to believe it, because this is an area I deal with on a daily basis. You keep referencing the espionage act. I never said she would be tried for espionage.. I said an espionage investigation would have been opened. She would have been found not guilty of espionage... that does not mean she is innocent of breaking all the other laws that apply to handling of classified information and should have been charged and judged just like every other person that deals with these matters.

Again, to reiterate... the double standard is what angers most people in this line of work. The fact that someone would have held the highest office after such violations most found insane. But you're right.. it's not important what our elected officials do.

Oh wait, apparently it is now that an (R) is next to their name and you politically disagree with them.

How about you move on and apply your "logic" to everyone, not just who you like or dislike.

So candidly Shaps, in this thread alone you've completely misrepresented the role of intent in the law, you've confused administrative statutes with criminal ones, you presumed to know more than career FBI prosecutors about how a case that they knew far more about than you do, and your assessment of the 9th Circuit decision was based on absolutely nothing (and was incorrect).

I'm just going to gently suggest here that maybe some of your resentment is based on some pretty fundamental misunderstandings of how the law works and what happened in the Clinton case.

If you want to know what the real double standard is in criminal cases of mishandling classified information- it's actually the way whistleblowers are treated under the Espionage Act. THAT'S worth getting angry about.

[Androidpk]

Yeah, clearly Shaps knows nothing about classified information. Nothing.

[Shaps]

So candidly Shaps, in this thread alone you've completely misrepresented the role of intent in the law, you've confused administrative statutes with criminal ones, you presumed to know more than career FBI prosecutors about how a case that they knew far more about than you do, and your assessment of the 9th Circuit decision was based on absolutely nothing (and was incorrect).

I'm just going to gently suggest here that maybe some of your resentment is based on some pretty fundamental misunderstandings of how the law works and what happened in the Clinton case.

If you want to know what the real double standard is in criminal cases of mishandling classified information- it's actually the way whistleblowers are treated under the Espionage Act. THAT'S worth getting angry about.

And again you keep going back to "espionage" when I already said she would have been found not guilty, but her actions should have definitely initiated an investigation. Pretty simple.

I've just provided you with one document that is required by all personnel that handle classified information are required to signed. I think you'll find in there the following:

4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

Not sure how much more clear something has to be.

As for you to keep claiming what the FBI Director stated in any way made sense and the DoJ's decision to not prosecute Clinton is a vindication of her is incorrect.. just shows how partisan you truly are. You, me, and everyone else is getting played by our politicians.. their appointed officials.. and all the political coverage and every shady aspect to not apply the laws fairly.

With your knowledge of law, I would think this would upset you more than most.. but again.. you simply turn a blind eye or make an excuse if it suits your needs.

At least I try (and still sometimes fail).. to observe, watch, and reserve judgment till I think it's time. Am I always correct? No. Do I try to focus on the individual and their actions? Yes.

[time4fun]

If Donald was a Democrat she'd be okay with everything he did. That's just how partisan hacks roll.

ROFL. Yeah, because if Obama had fired Comey while he was overseeing the Clinton investigation you would've totally been blase and accused anyone who called for Obama to face obstruction charges a partisan.

You hypocritical mess.

[time4fun]

Like I said, examples were posted numerous times last year and as always you dismissed each and every one of them, just like you do whenever your "reality" is challenged.

You still have absolutely nothing.

Not a single citation. Not a single case.

It's astounding to me how often you are so flat out wrong about critical things, and yet you somehow still think you're right. Be honest with yourself- if you can't find a case that supports your earlier claim that people who mishandle classified information are often convicted without establishing intent or gross negligence- then you said something that you didn't actually know was true.

You literally made something up because you liked the way it sounded.

[Androidpk]

ROFL. Yeah, because if Obama had fired Comey while he was overseeing the Clinton investigation you would've totally been blase and accused anyone who called for Obama to face obstruction charges a partisan.

You hypocritical mess.

Of course I would have complained if Obama fired Comey. Just like I complained about Trump firing Comey. The only hypocrite here is you and everyone knows it.

[Androidpk]

You still have absolutely nothing.

Not a single citation. Not a single case.

It's astounding to me how often you are so flat out wrong about critical things, and yet you somehow still think you're right. Be honest with yourself- if you can't find a case that supports your earlier claim that people who mishandle classified information are often convicted without establishing intent or gross negligence- then you said something that you didn't actually know was true.

You literally made something up because you liked the way it sounded.

So you're a hypocrite AND a troll. Shocker.

[time4fun]

And again you keep going back to "espionage" when I already said she would have been found not guilty, but her actions should have definitely initiated an investigation. Pretty simple.

I've just provided you with one document that is required by all personnel that handle classified information are required to signed. I think you'll find in there the following:

4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

Not sure how much more clear something has to be.

As for you to keep claiming what the FBI Director stated in any way made sense and the DoJ's decision to not prosecute Clinton is a vindication of her is incorrect.. just shows how partisan you truly are. You, me, and everyone else is getting played by our politicians.. their appointed officials.. and all the political coverage and every shady aspect to not apply the laws fairly.

With your knowledge of law, I would think this would upset you more than most.. but again.. you simply turn a blind eye or make an excuse if it suits your needs.

At least I try (and still sometimes fail).. to observe, watch, and reserve judgment till I think it's time. Am I always correct? No. Do I try to focus on the individual and their actions? Yes.


I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

So the first section is listing the consequences for a current employee who violates the "company rules", as it were. It's just saying what I said to you earlier- that these are violations of the company's IT policy. You can get in trouble for violating them. But that doesn't make you a criminal. And, since it's just an administrative statute, it doesn't have to follow the basic requirements for criminal law. (Just like my current company's IT policies don't have to account for mens rea). And I'm not sure what it is you think that your current agency could do to you if they found out you violated the IT policy AFTER you left, but the answer here is: nothing. Trying to force Clinton to face some sort of administrative proceedings though she was no longer an employee of the State Department would have been a double standard (also insane).


That's further acknowledged when they have a separate provision that says what you do MAY constitute a criminal violation. i.e. There's nothing that automatically makes breaking the company IT policy criminal. My own employment contract with a private company also has similar language, btw. It's pretty standard "scare you into submission stuff". It's important for Government Agencies to have that language though, obviously, as they constantly walk a tight rope between a relationship as your Government and a relationship as your employer. It leads to some pretty interesting (and often frustrating) case law.


As far as your comment about Clinton, the DoJ, and vindication...when the Director of the FBI is under oath and says he didn't want a special prosecutor because he didn't want to give the public the impression that he expected a criminal indictment to come out of it...that's pretty clear. And when an investigation ends with "No reasonable prosecutor would ever take this case", then yeah, the person is vindicated. In the case of an investigation, recommending no charges is literally the definition of vindication.

[Neveragain]

Did anyone think it'd pass at this point?

No.

[time4fun]

So you're a hypocrite AND a troll. Shocker.

Still nothing.


Come on PK. You made the claim- not me. You're so well read in this. Why aren't you providing a single example? (Not that a single example would justify your statement- which indicated this often happens)

[time4fun]

Of course I would have complained if Obama fired Comey. Just like I complained about Trump firing Comey. The only hypocrite here is you and everyone knows it.

Really?

That must be why you're complaining so much about Trump having done so.

Oh wait- no, you're still complaining about Clinton.

And there's not a single person here who doesn't fundamentally know you'd have been shrieking bloody impeachment murder if Obama had done that. And yet, Trump did something much more serious, and you've barely got anything to say.

[Androidpk]

I've always been clear on my feelings about Trump.

[Tgo01]

Come on PK. You made the claim- not me.

According to your LNet boyfriend it's up to you to find pk's post and quote it and if you don't it proves it exists and that you're too afraid to admit it exists and that you're wrong.

[Shaps]

Good discussions for the night. Pick it up next time :) .

[Parkbandit]

Actually, Mr Troll, I argued several months ago that both EOs violated the INA's prohibitions against discriminating based on national origin and pointed out repeatedly that neither EO's stated purpose was related to its enforcement mechanism.

You may recognize those things as the basis of the 9th Circuit decision today.

No, just kidding. You never read it and probably wouldn't understand it even if you tried.

You said you were right and we were wrong. Can you quote a post where I stated that the 9th Circuit would side with the Trump Administration on this? It never happened.

Stop being willfully retarded

[time4fun]

You said you were right and we were wrong. Can you quote a post where I stated that the 9th Circuit would side with the Trump Administration on this? It never happened.

Stop being willfully retarded

Oh. So you didn't argue that the EO was Constitutional?

[Parkbandit]

Oh. So you didn't argue that the EO was Constitutional?

A rejection by the retarded 9th Circuit has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with alt left politics.

Bring it to SCOTUS

[Latrinsorm]

4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.

Not sure how much more clear something has to be.This says "may constitute a violation". Which provisions are you claiming that Clinton did in fact violate?

[Parkbandit]

The 9th Circuit today (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/9th-circuit-travel-ban/index.html)followed the 4th Circuit in refusing to reinstate most of the revised Muslim ban:

Oh, and Methais dear, that would be yet another thing I was right about. Meanwhile the conservative clowns of PC were wrong.

Again.

Full Decision here. (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/general/cases_of_interest/17-15589%20per%20curiam%20opinion.pdf)

This was my favorite post in this thread.. up until this one:


A rejection by the retarded 9th Circuit has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with alt left politics.

Bring it to SCOTUS

Remember when time4fun created a fictional story of her being right and everyone who said it was within the President's power to have a travel ban was wrong?

Adorable.

And no.. I'm STILL not tired of all this winning.

It's STILL funny reading Androidpk's political posts prior to his meltdown/breakdown...

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't recall who time4fun is, but man, they don't know shit about the law, per SCOTUS.

Maybe there should be a night set aside for snowflakes to yell at the sky in angst?

[Gelston]

I don't recall who time4fun is, but man, they don't know shit about the law, per SCOTUS.

Maybe there should be a night set aside for snowflakes to yell at the sky in angst?

Vishra IG, you can usually find her bitching about Trump on LNet.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0824/6367/products/variant_image_5abcdf1f-5024-4a4e-b5ac-2f1dbf09fa9d.png?v=1523871384