Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

Nah, why would I do that?

Whatever. You do you . . .

 

[Snarky Sack]

I think if you could clarify for us what you did mean here, then that would help.

Alternatively, you would need to admit you misunderstood restricted/formerly restricted classifications.

Then I think we would all be able to move on.

Ok, I'll be happy to. I don't think you can speak for "all" being able to move on, but I'll give it a try.

Which statement do you mean?

 

[brandon]

Ok, I'll be happy to. I don't think you can speak for "all" being able to move on, but I'll give it a try.

Which statement do you mean?

Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted.

 

[superchuck500]

I’m her time on the bench, Cannon has presided over just four criminal trials totaling 14 days. She has no business being on the bench to start with - she’s purely a product of Rubio and Heritage, but now this wholly under qualified judge will preside over the most high profile criminal case in modern American history.

 

[brandon]

I’m her time on the bench, Cannon has presided over just four criminal trials totaling 14 days. She has no business being on the bench to start with - she’s purely a product of Rubio and Heritage, but now this wholly under qualified judge will preside over the most high profile criminal case in modern American history.

So you’re saying she only has 4 more criminal trials than I do?

Sign me up, I’ve got this.

 

[Snarky Sack]

To make a simple analogy, classified information is information that is supposed to kept secret, right? Well, there is a category/level of classified information that is "Secret." If information is moved from "Secret" to "Confidential," that does not mean that it no longer has to be kept secret.

Here are the definitions of https://www.directives.doe.gov/terms_definitions/restricted-data

@brandon, the above is what I was responding to when I said:

FullMonte used two different meanings of the word "secret." The word secret in blue above means the official classification of SECRET and the word secret in green mean secret in the standard meaning of "information to be kept away from unauthorized eyes." He did that on purpose; he wasn't pulling a fast one. I understood immediately that he did that, and I didn't have any issue with it.

I did not. I used the word "restricted" in the same meaning all three times, and "formerly restricted" one time as official government terms.

Obviously RESTRICTED or FORMERLY RESTRICTED nuclear secrets would be classified and would be "restricted" in the standard meaning, that you can't just let anyone see them. I never said you could, but FullMonte was trying to get me to say I was wrong to say what I never said.

I think this was all very obvious, but just not to Fullmonte. He's a smart guy, he just probably read it too quick. He misinterpreted and then spun himself up trying to get me to admit that his misinterpretation of what I said was what I said and that it was wrong.

I feel bad about talking about him now, because he was OK with dropping it. Sorry, FullMonte, I'm really hoping this is the end of it.

 

[MT15]

You keep saying this, but it simply isn't true. What Trump is accused of doing is more similar to Robert Birchum, Jeremy Brown or Nghia Hoang Pho, than what Hillary Clinton did.

You can see when people do what Hillary did, they lose their clearance but are not prosecuted, but when people do what Trump did they are prosecuted. It's pretty consistent.

Good luck, I’ve been trying for days to get him to admit he is wrong about this. He will not admit it.

 

[brandon]

FullMonte used two different meanings of the word "secret." The word secret in blue above means the official classification of SECRET and the word secret in green mean secret in the standard meaning of "information to be kept away from unauthorized eyes." He did that on purpose; he wasn't pulling a fast one. I understood immediately that he did that, and I didn't have any issue with it.

I did not. I used the word "restricted" in the same meaning all three times, and "formerly restricted" one time as official government terms.

For the sake of clarification, can you color code your use of restricted in the same way you color coded @FullMonte’s use of secret?

I think this will better indicate where you intended to draw the lines.

 

[DaveXA]

I’m her time on the bench, Cannon has presided over just four criminal trials totaling 14 days. She has no business being on the bench to start with - she’s purely a product of Rubio and Heritage, but now this wholly under qualified judge will preside over the most high profile criminal case in modern American history.

So...why doesn't the court pull her from this if she's apparently this underqualified? What a mess.

 

[FullMonte]

Sorry, I've been a little busy at work, but I've been watching this thread and enjoying it. I wasn't going to jump back in until this:

I think this was all very obvious, but just not to Fullmonte. He's a smart guy, he just probably read it too quick. He misinterpreted and then spun himself up trying to get me to admit that his misinterpretation of what I said was what I said and that it was wrong.

That's not even close to what happened. Let me recap our discussion. I won't quote everything for the sake of brevity, but if I missed some context somewhere, please feel free to point it out so I can correct myself.

This all started with you questioning whether the "report on our nuclear capabilities" was a newspaper article or open source journal, so I posted exactly how it was listed in the indictment, including the classification markings (not because Trump has been charged with anything related to documents being classified, but to show that it was not a newspaper article or such, and was actually a government sourced document. That classified marking was "Formerly Restricted Data," to which I added:
"'Formerly Restricted Data' does not mean that it is no longer classified"

Your response to that was "No, but it means that it is no longer restricted." (please feel free to explain if you did not mean that the information was no longer restricted in the general term of the word restricted; because your statement was wrong. It means that it is no longer 'Restricted Data')

In an effort to explain it better, I clarified in my next post "Restricted Data is a specific category of classified information related to atomic weapons. Formerly Restricted Data is still classified data, it just no longer meets the criteria to be kept in the "Restricted Data" category. It is still restricted in the sense that it is classified, and only people with security clearance,..."

You disputed that, saying "Restricted and classified are two different things. I'm surprised you are making that argument, or maybe I'm confused as to what point you're making..."

So, again, I clarified that "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" are classification levels (even going so far as to point out that I wasn't using the word "restricted" in the general sense, but was using the specific term "Restricted Data", "first off, we are not talking about "Restricted." We are talking about "Restricted Data." Restricted Data is a special category of classified information that deals with certain aspects of atomic weapons. At times, information that is in the Restricted Data category of classified information is determined to no longer meet the criteria of Restricted Data. Such information is then classified as Formerly Restricted Data. Both Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data are still classified."

Twice I explained that "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" are terms designating special classification levels, yet you still responded "Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted." (Note the last part "it no longer has to be restricted." Please explain what that was intended to mean if you weren't saying that there was no longer a restriction on access to it)

Finally, after giving you a link to the dept of energy website actually definining "Formerly Restricted Data" as classified information you said "agree to disagree."

@brandon, the above is what I was responding to when I said:

FullMonte used two different meanings of the word "secret." The word secret in blue above means the official classification of SECRET and the word secret in green mean secret in the standard meaning of "information to be kept away from unauthorized eyes." He did that on purpose; he wasn't pulling a fast one. I understood immediately that he did that, and I didn't have any issue with it.

Weird that you grasped the concept of me using the word secret and having two different definitions, but for some reason didn't connect "To make an analogy" as referring to the previous paragraph where I stated that "Formerly Restricted Data" did not use the word "restricted" in the standard definition.

Obviously RESTRICTED or FORMERLY RESTRICTED nuclear secrets would be classified and would be "restricted" in the standard meaning, that you can't just let anyone see them. I never said you could, but FullMonte was trying to get me to say I was wrong to say what I never said.

Again, I'll ask you how you didn't mean that FRD is classified is "restricted" in the standard meaning, yet you said "Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted."

 

[Snarky Sack]

For the sake of clarification, can you color code your use of restricted in the same way you color coded @FullMonte’s use of secret?

I think this will better indicate where you intended to draw the lines.

My pleasure.

Green = Official Government Marking
Blue = standard meaning outside of government classification systems

Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sorry, I've been a little busy at work, but I've been watching this thread and enjoying it. I wasn't going to jump back in until this:



That's not even close to what happened. Let me recap our discussion. I won't quote everything for the sake of brevity, but if I missed some context somewhere, please feel free to point it out so I can correct myself.

This all started with you questioning whether the "report on our nuclear capabilities" was a newspaper article or open source journal, so I posted exactly how it was listed in the indictment, including the classification markings (not because Trump has been charged with anything related to documents being classified, but to show that it was not a newspaper article or such, and was actually a government sourced document. That classified marking was "Formerly Restricted Data," to which I added:
"'Formerly Restricted Data' does not mean that it is no longer classified"

Your response to that was "No, but it means that it is no longer restricted." (please feel free to explain if you did not mean that the information was no longer restricted in the general term of the word restricted; because your statement was wrong. It means that it is no longer 'Restricted Data')

In an effort to explain it better, I clarified in my next post "Restricted Data is a specific category of classified information related to atomic weapons. Formerly Restricted Data is still classified data, it just no longer meets the criteria to be kept in the "Restricted Data" category. It is still restricted in the sense that it is classified, and only people with security clearance,..."

You disputed that, saying "Restricted and classified are two different things. I'm surprised you are making that argument, or maybe I'm confused as to what point you're making..."

So, again, I clarified that "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" are classification levels (even going so far as to point out that I wasn't using the word "restricted" in the general sense, but was using the specific term "Restricted Data", "first off, we are not talking about "Restricted." We are talking about "Restricted Data." Restricted Data is a special category of classified information that deals with certain aspects of atomic weapons. At times, information that is in the Restricted Data category of classified information is determined to no longer meet the criteria of Restricted Data. Such information is then classified as Formerly Restricted Data. Both Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data are still classified."

Twice I explained that "Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" are terms designating special classification levels, yet you still responded "Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted." (Note the last part "it no longer has to be restricted." Please explain what that was intended to mean if you weren't saying that there was no longer a restriction on access to it)

Finally, after giving you a link to the dept of energy website actually definining "Formerly Restricted Data" as classified information you said "agree to disagree."


Weird that you grasped the concept of me using the word secret and having two different definitions, but for some reason didn't connect "To make an analogy" as referring to the previous paragraph where I stated that "Formerly Restricted Data" did not use the word "restricted" in the standard definition.



Again, I'll ask you how you didn't mean that FRD is classified is "restricted" in the standard meaning, yet you said "Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted."

I read all that, I promise. Let's see where we are missing each other. What did you think I was agreeing to when I said "Right" in this quote? Also, see my response to brandon for further clarification.

Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted.

 

[FullMonte]

I read all that, I promise. Let's see where we are missing each other. What did you think I was agreeing to when I said "Right" in this quote?

I said: "To make a simple analogy, classified information is information that is supposed to kept secret, right? Well, there is a category/level of classified information that is "Secret." If information is moved from "Secret" to "Confidential," that does not mean that it no longer has to be kept secret."

You quoted that, and responded: "Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted."

You were responding directly to my analogy using secret in two different ways, and then said that when it is moved to "formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted." I don't see how that is supposed to be interpreted as anything other than saying access to it is no longer restricted.

You using "formerly restricted" and "restricted" instead of "Formerly Restricted Data" and "Restricted Data" implies that you were using the words "formerly" and "restricted" in their general term.

 

[DaveXA]

I read all that, I promise. Let's see where we are missing each other. What did you think I was agreeing to when I said "Right" in this quote? Also, see my response to brandon for further clarification.

Why not just say what you're referring to?

 

[brandon]

My pleasure.

Green = Official Government Marking
Blue = standard meaning outside of government classification systems

So it is your contention that in your original post, you were using “restricted” ONLY in the official governmental marking context? That the phrase you used did not in any way refer to the general use of the term?

You surely can’t expect us to believe that, right? If that is what you meant, then the entire sentence lacks any meaning. Of course moving from “Restricted” to “Formerly Restricted” means it’s no longer “Restricted.”

But what point would you be making by saying that? It’s like saying if my car was blue but I painted it green, it’s no longer blue.

Yea, but so what?

Additionally, the use of the phrase “has to be” clearly implies you were talking about the general use of the word. You did not say “no longer is restricted.” You said “no longer has to be restricted.” This phrase only makes sense in the general sense of restricted. It makes no sense when talking about the classification.

We can’t continue having real conversation if you’re just going to lie rather than admit when you were wrong. It’s not even a big deal in the grand scheme of this thread. But it is something you were wrong about, and we can all drop it once you admit that.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

So...why doesn't the court pull her from this if she's apparently this underqualified? What a mess.

When Trump loses, it'll just be one more reason to appeal "she was unqualified". They will turn on her quick..

 

[Snarky Sack]

I said: "To make a simple analogy, classified information is information that is supposed to kept secret, right? Well, there is a category/level of classified information that is "Secret." If information is moved from "Secret" to "Confidential," that does not mean that it no longer has to be kept secret."

You quoted that, and responded: "Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted."

Yes, that is what I meant by "right." That it does not mean that it no long has to be "kept secret."

You were responding directly to my analogy using secret in two different ways, and then said that when it is moved to "formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted." I don't see how that is supposed to be interpreted as anything other than saying access to it is no longer restricted.

You using "formerly restricted" and "restricted" instead of "Formerly Restricted Data" and "Restricted Data" implies that you were using the words "formerly" and "restricted" in their general term.

I was not. I was using them as if they were markings. In your sentences, you used quote marks to indicate the markings as opposed to the general concept, and I did not use anything to indicate, since I only meant the markings.

I propose that in the future, we use all caps in a sentence like "The document was marked CONFIDENTIAL." and lower case in a sentence like, "Anything you tell your lawyer is confidential."

 

[Snarky Sack]

So it is your contention that in your original post, you were using “restricted” ONLY in the official governmental marking context? That the phrase you used did not in any way refer to the general use of the term?

Yes. Just an observation, this asking the same question over and over seems to be a pattern on this board.

You surely can’t expect us to believe that, right? If that is what you meant, then the entire sentence lacks any meaning. Of course moving from “Restricted” to “Formerly Restricted” means it’s no longer “Restricted.”

If I'm a liar, what is your point in debating me?

Additionally, the use of the phrase “has to be” clearly implies you were talking about the general use of the word. You did not say “no longer is restricted.” You said “no longer has to be restricted.” This phrase only makes sense in the general sense of restricted. It makes no sense when talking about the classification.

FullMonte said "no longer has to be" right before I did. I matched FM's phraseology without giving it nearly as much thought as you have. People often do in conversation. Here's some light reading for you:

What Is Linguistic Style Matching?

Linguistic style matching is the tendency of participants to use a common vocabulary and similar sentence structures.

www.thoughtco.com

In conversation, texting, emailing, and other forms of interactive communication, the tendency of participants to use a common vocabulary and similar sentence structures.

We can’t continue having real conversation if you’re just going to lie rather than admit when you were wrong.

That's what I just said. Why would you want to keep debating if I'm a liar?

By the same token, I have no reason to "debate" someone who falls back on "you're a liar!" when the debate doesn't go their way.

I hope you have enjoyed your trolling.

For the final time: Agree to disagree.