While our S.C. babbles on and on today they appear to ignore our Constitution.

[elektra]

Sorry the specific pages was not found when it takes you to the website as it was probably moved.

The page was not moved in the time you posted the link and me clicking on the link moments later.

The fact is you did not click on the link and read what your thought it said. Kilroy, you believe an unread link proves you right simple because you did a google search.

Further, I told you, you nothing until you read a dozen books.
Post all the bullshit about Nixon you like. Without reading books, you know nothing, which broken links prove.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I’ve seen a few. Had some briefings that were classified both Secret and TS. But the point is that Biden was given the documents. And in the old days a SCIF was often their office.

I got a TS briefing in the middle of the Desert in Saudi Arabia. No SCIF in sight. And we were told the information was Top Secret not to be repeated and no notes were to be taken. I examined Ariel photographs from both Spy Satellites and an SR-71 in the old days. I was taught how the Encryption system worked and how the keys were created. That was considered Secret No Forn.

We were not always as careful as we should have been with the routine handling of classified information. I strongly doubt that in the White House the President only examines TS information in the Situation Room. I doubt the VP walks out of his office to a designated SCIF. I doubt the Senators do either. Most of those folks read the information in offices or in one of the hearing chambers when doing a closed hearing.

Everything I did in my fist assignment in the Navy was Secret at minimum. I have had TS SCI-level briefings more than I could count, but I never had access to the documents, just like you didn't when you were briefed. Why do you have a kindergarten level of understanding on this topic?

These briefers maintain the material. They just don't leave the documents for them to review at their leisure because they signed for the documents are responsible for them.

 

[SavannahMann]

Everything I did in my fist assignment in the Navy was Secret at minimum. I have had TS SCI-level briefings more than I could count, but I never had access to the documents, just like you didn't when you were briefed. Why do you have a kindergarten level of understanding on this topic?

These briefers maintain the material. They just don't leave the documents for them to review at their leisure because they signed for the documents are responsible for them.

We had access to the photographs. It had date, time, platform, and coordinates. The reason we were shown the photographs is to help us come up with tactics and techniques for assaulting Iraqi defensive instillations. They used among other things a trench system that looked like a big W. Heavy crew served weapons at the points.

By examining the photographs we could estimate how deep the trenches were, and how difficult they would be to assault. We built copies to practice with.

On the backs of the photographs was the classification level. Mostly secret. The date and time and location coordinates. And the platform, in general.

We were told the aircraft was a SR-71, and the satellite was a spy satellite.

We were told to never discuss the clarity of the pictures. We were told not to write home about it.

Probably wasted since the intel agencies of the various nations had a good idea what the cameras could do. But we followed orders and didn’t talk about it in letters home.

We determined that the W shaped defensive trenches would be tough to assault with infantry. Even with Engineer support. Armor would be better, and Artillery would be best of all.

We examined bunker complexes in other photographs and just before we crossed the line examined BDA assessment photographs to better understand the type of construction the Iraqi’s were using.

Double walled concrete structures with a large void to absorb impact and explosions. Able to stop CBU munitions easily. Unable to stop armor piercing. These were the days before the penetrator munitions were developed. One of the assignments we got near Talil Airfield was destruction of the Bunker Complex holding enough munitions to rearm a Division. The Air Force had destroyed some bunkers, but we got the rest the old fashioned way. Explosives and Det cord to set it all off at once.


I never said documents. I said photographs. That was because we were the ones assaulting the targets on the ground. We were going to be outnumbered and needed all the advantage we could get. We practiced and trained on the enemies actual tactics.

 

[johnwk]

With regards to January 6th, Trump has already been found innocent by trial in the Senate. How can he be charged again?

BINGO

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is wrong venue to try Trump for "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Let us take a look at what our Constitution states with reference to trying a president for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.


The fact is, the House did Act on January 25, 2021, and filed H. RES. 24 with the Senate, charging Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

This is the first step, under our Constitution to deal with a President who is alleged to have committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”).

And under our Constitution, Article I; Section 3, Clauses 6 we find:

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.” And that includes trying the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.



And the Senate did in fact exercise its sole power to try Donald John Trump for "high crimes and misdemeanors”.

And on February 13, 2021, Trump was acquitted of "high crimes and misdemeanors” by the following ROLL CALL VOTE
.
Had Trump been convicted by the Senate, as provided by our Constitution, the Senate could have then disqualified Trump to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, and being convicted by the Senate, the door would also have then been opened to his being “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7) But the Senate, exercising its sole power to try the President, acquitted him.



So, the question now is, under what Constitutional authorities did our hate Trump crowd lawfully indict and then prosecute Trump in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which is infested with our hate-Trump crowd, when the constitutionally authorized venue to try the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors” is the Senate of the United States, which has sole power over the subject matter and under which he had already been acquitted?

 

[johnwk]

With regards to January 6th, Trump has already been found innocent by trial in the Senate. How can he be charged again?

And our Supreme Court confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated.

In Smith v. United States, 2023, our Supreme Court confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated with the possibility of a retrial.

So, what was the proper venue to try Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors” . . . the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, or, the United States Senate, which appears to have "sole power" to try "high crimes and misdemeanors” and acquitted Trump of the charges?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And our Supreme Court confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated.

In Smith v. United States, 2023, our Supreme Court confirmed an improper venue for a criminal trial can be vacated with the possibility of a retrial.

So, what was the proper venue to try Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors” . . . the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, or, the United States Senate, which appears to have "sole power" to try "high crimes and misdemeanors” and acquitted Trump of the charges?

and in other news, water is wet.

Who are you trying to convince that this is well-known?

 

[Kilroy2]

The page was not moved in the time you posted the link and me clicking on the link moments later.

The fact is you did not click on the link and read what your thought it said. Kilroy, you believe an unread link proves you right simple because you did a google search.

Further, I told you, you nothing until you read a dozen books.
Post all the bullshit about Nixon you like. Without reading books, you know nothing, which broken links prove.

This page isn't available now. Get the latest

if you get that message its clear " that the page isn't available now"
thus whomever put it up removed it.

Any page can be removed quickly for whatever reason
Since I was able to see it and now its gone but it it does give you a reason

But you seem to ignore it for whatever

Yet when you say bullshit about Nixon , you seem to be pro Nixon.

Still fact is he resigned.

They had started the impeachment process but before the could finished Nixon resigned

July 27–30, 1974, when members of the Democratic-led Judiciary Committee eventually approved three articles of impeachment.

On August 5, 1974, Nixon released a transcript of one of the additional conversations to the public, known as the "smoking gun" tape, which made clear his complicity in the Watergate cover-up.

Nixon gave up the struggle to remain in office, and resigned on August 9, 1974. The Tape done did that.

Since he resigned then there was no need to further the impeachment process. So he officially was never impeached because he resigned when it became evident that he would be impeached.

September 8, 1974, President Ford granted Nixon a pardon so Nixon never faced any jail time. The case was solid against him

class dismissed

Impeachment process against Richard Nixon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jc456]

During today’s S.C. hearing regarding presidential immunity, it was repeatedly admitted by all that bribery is a prosecutable offense by the terms of our Constitution. What was repeatedly ignored with respect to our President is, if there is an accusation of our president engaging in bribery or another criminal offense, our Constitution provides the remedy and venue . . . impeachment first, and then a trial by the Senate.

The bottom line is, our nitwitted S.C. in general, has today babbled on and on over a subject matter constitutionally left in the hands of the House, and then Senate.

With regard to any prosecution of the president if found guilty of a crime by the Senate, the president can then be prosecuted for that crime in a public venue, probably initiated by the United States Attorney General.

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

Or not

 

[Kilroy2]

You left out the part where the sitting president was impeached? Oh wait Nixon was not impeached.

You then left out the part where Nixon was indicted? Oh wait, Nixon was not indicted.
MSNBC, fiction based on fact. Propaganda.
Landmark cases? Never heard of it, but it is guaranteed that a 10 second read on the internet is most likely bullshit or at best, fiction based on fact.
The only thing Nixon proves, is we need to run every Democrat and Republican out of government and throw them in jail for doing far worst to Trump than they did to Nixon.
You know nothing with your 30 second google education. Read a dozen books, then give a summary. Without studying from books, on a subject such as Watergate, you know nothing. You got reading to do.
View attachment 938516

I was address executive privilege only with Nixon as obviously he resigned before the impeachment effort was finished

Yes Nixon was never impeached. He resigned before it could happen. Impeachment is only for removing someone from office. If he quits then there is no reason for impeachment . He quit the office and the issue was finished. He removed himself from office.

Its really not even a legal remedy for conviction of a crime. Its just a way to remove someone from office.

Thus Ford granted a pardon for Nixon in the whole matter. So now there is not even a reason to have a regular trial in the judicial system.

 

[elektra]

I was address executive privilege only with Nixon as obviously he resigned before the impeachment effort was finished

Yes Nixon was never impeached. He resigned before it could happen. Impeachment is only for removing someone from office. If he quits then there is no reason for impeachment . He quit the office and the issue was finished. He removed himself from office.

Its really not even a legal remedy for conviction of a crime. Its just a way to remove someone from office.

Thus Ford granted a pardon for Nixon in the whole matter. So now there is not even a reason to have a regular trial in the judicial system.

If we dig deeper, Nixon fought Ford, saying no to a pardon, stating he wanted the impeachment and the trial to prove his innocence. But, Nixon eventually agreed. This is why I say one must study Watergate, little details that are huge, we will never know with a google search.

So much more can be said about Watergate, so much so, 100's of books have been written.

 

[Kilroy2]

The concept is immunity not privilege. You have no idea what is being discussed. Shut up until you do, jackass!

Yet you make your own case for shutting up. Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution. In civil matters he has some immunity by claiming executive privilege.

The concept of privilege and immunity is different in civil matters from criminal matters.

You want to combine immunity based on executive privilege with a crime and as a civil matter

Nixon did not want to release the tapes that showed his criminal conduct and he claiming executive privilege . Court disagreed and he had to release the tapes. Clearly denying executive privilege in criminal conduct.

Executive privilege is for civil matters and president cannot be sued in civil court for his actions while in office. It does not apply to criminal court but Trump and supporters want it to apply to crimes. Admitting that he has committed crimes.

Trump is afraid that if he release information that it can be used to show criminal intent. So he claims executive privilege.

Nixon claimed executive privilege and would not release incriminating tapes for crimes he committed while in office. SC say now way Jose.

SC decision forced him to release the tapes that led to his downfall

Ex·ec·u·tive priv·i·lege
/ɪɡˈzɛkjədɪv/

noun

• 1.the privilege, claimed by the president for the executive branch of the US government, of withholding information in the public intere

 

[Kilroy2]

If we dig deeper, Nixon fought Ford, saying no to a pardon, stating he wanted the impeachment and the trial to prove his innocence. But, Nixon eventually agreed. This is why I say one must study Watergate, little details that are huge, we will never know with a google search.

So much more can be said about Watergate, so much so, 100's of books have been written.

A lot was going on sure but we have to look at the incriminating evidence and did it show that he did criminal acts as the President.

The tapes. They incriminated Nixon. Then the informant (deep throat) also provided additional information that left no doubt.

Congress started the impeachment. All that was left was for the vote and they said it was enough to impeach with the tapes being the smoking gun and the release of additional incriminating evidence.

the tapes that Nixon was trying to hide under executive privilege incriminated Nixon. When SCOTUS denied Nixon executive privilege in hiding the tapes it was over.

By him resigning was the only way for the impeachment to stop. He no longer was in office

Then with the Ford pardon, there was no criminal trial needed. He still in the history books but never was impeached. Sure he wanted to fight but in the end , he accepted defeat.

 

[johnwk]

Let us examine exactly what has taken place with the case against Trump in D.C.

.

What appears to have taken place is an intentional perversion of our constitution and the rule of law. Those trying to undermine our Presidency have looked at specific charges the House impeached Trump under and the Senate acquitted him of, parsed those specific charges into an INDICTMENT and assigned any federal statutory criminal law that closely resembles a specific charge under which the House impeached, and then moved forward with re-trying the former President in spite of him already having been acquitted of them under the unique process specifically adopted to deal with a President who commits acts which fall within the constitutional meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

That seems to sum up what has taken place and confirms our rule of law has been undermined, and some very evil actors in our judicial system, are part of this intentional undermining.

 

[elektra]

A lot was going on sure but we have to look at the incriminating evidence and did it show that he did criminal acts as the President.

The tapes. They incriminated Nixon. Then the informant (deep throat) also provided additional information that left no doubt.

Congress started the impeachment. All that was left was for the vote and they said it was enough to impeach with the tapes being the smoking gun and the release of additional incriminating evidence.

the tapes that Nixon was trying to hide under executive privilege incriminated Nixon. When SCOTUS denied Nixon executive privilege in hiding the tapes it was over.

By him resigning was the only way for the impeachment to stop. He no longer was in office

Then with the Ford pardon, there was no criminal trial needed. He still in the history books but never was impeached. Sure he wanted to fight but in the end , he accepted defeat.

the break in had nothing to do with nixon, deep throat was setting nixon up, making believe he had something to hide

Was it nixons attorney, hiding information about prostitutes,

A lot was going on sure but we have to look at the incriminating evidence and did it show that he did criminal acts as the President.

The tapes. They incriminated Nixon. Then the informant (deep throat) also provided additional information that left no doubt.

Congress started the impeachment. All that was left was for the vote and they said it was enough to impeach with the tapes being the smoking gun and the release of additional incriminating evidence.

the tapes that Nixon was trying to hide under executive privilege incriminated Nixon. When SCOTUS denied Nixon executive privilege in hiding the tapes it was over.

By him resigning was the only way for the impeachment to stop. He no longer was in office

Then with the Ford pardon, there was no criminal trial needed. He still in the history books but never was impeached. Sure he wanted to fight but in the end , he accepted defeat.

rumors have it, it was a Nelson Rockefeller coup attempt
cia and george bush
it was a case Hillary Clinton worked on with the prosecution right of College
the break in had nothing to do with nixon
one of nixon's lawyer was trying to cover something up

It would be a nice discussion, I would love to have, when I am not traveling, when I have access to this, my library. This is half my books. 99% Non-Fiction. My Nixon books is in another picture. And I may only have one on Watergate, but I do have G. Gordon Liddy's book, so I guess one, and another that touches on it.

 

[Kilroy2]

Nice spin pointing to saying Nixon did not do it. Mob boss rarely do the actual crime, he just orders it done.

It s not that he did not physically break in but what was his involvement?

He tried to hide the crime which is still breaking the law

members of Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President broke into the Democratic National Committee’s Watergate headquarters,

tried it again and were caught red handed and arrested

What did Nixon do, he arranged to pay off the ones arrested to keep them quite

then Nixon got the CIA to interfere in the FBI investigation which is obstruction of justice

Yes it was exposed because of the whistle blower

Deep throat exposed that Nixon kept tapes of his conversations

Executive privilege was claimed to keep the tapes hidden.

He then fired people who were not defending him

SCOTUS order Nixon to turn over the tapes

The tapes proof his involvement in the cover up and it would be hard to believe that he was not aware of the planned break in but it cannot be proven with any certainty.

He just tried to cover up his involvement in the cover up.

18 U.S.C. § 1001 is often referred to as a false statement statute, its scope extends beyond statements. The statute proscribes the acts of making false statements, falsifying, concealing or covering up. The statute also covers half-truths if there is a duty to speak the truth.

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

Some say that "the cover-up is worse than the crime."

meaning you will just make it worse by covering it up.

Did Nixon know about the break in. In my opinion , yes he did as his minions would ask the boss if its okay as the boss will still suffer either way.

The Watergate Scandal - Timeline, Summary & Deep Throat | HISTORY

A June 1972 break-in to the Democratic National Committee headquarters led to an investigation that revealed multiple abuses of power by the Nixon administration and a vote by the House Judiciary Committee for impeachment.

www.history.com

 

[johnwk]

Nice spin pointing to saying Nixon did not do it. Mob boss rarely do the actual crime, he just orders it done.

It s not that he did not physically break in but what was his involvement?

Why on earth are you so fixated on Nixon, and not interested in what is now occurring in the here-and-now?

What is now taking place with respect to the D.C. indictment against a former president, is an intentional perversion and undermining of our constitution and the rule of law by evil actors.

Those trying to undermine our Presidency and our Western rule of law, looked at specific charges the House impeached a former president under. And in spite of the Senate acquitting a former President of those charges, the above mentioned evil actors adopted the specific charges mentioned in the impeachment in an INDICTMENT of a former President by shoehorning in any federal criminal statute that closely resembles a specific charge under which the House impeached, and then moved forward with re-trying the former President in spite of him already having been acquitted of such charges under the unique process specifically agreed to in our Constitution to deal with a President who commits acts which fall within the constitutional meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The bottom line is, our Western system of law and justice is under attack by some notoriously evil actors, some who carry out their evil while exercising an office of public trust, including some who wear black robes.

JWK

When violent hate America demonstrations occur in the U.S. (as they now are) and terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and un-vetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.