The internet takeover thread

[C-Mag]

How far back do you want to go? I'd say colluding with the Mafia to get his construction projects fast tracked or discrimination against black tennants would be a good place to start.

You'd say ? WTF is that.

I can name US Code laws that Hillary has violated. Don't lump the two together.
It's OK Monte, you can admit there is no real proof of Trump breaking laws here; and
you can still dislike him just 'cause. That's OK. But don't make shit up.

[Montegriffo]

Just Google Trump's links to Mafia and see what comes up.

[C-Mag]

Just Google Trump's links to Mafia and see what comes up.

WEAK, Very Weak.

I'd counter with Googling the Clinton Death List. Again, those are suspected interenet crimes. I can quote US espionage code on Clinton.

[Okeefenokee]

How far back do you want to go? I'd say colluding with the Mafia to get his construction projects fast tracked or discrimination against black tennants would be a good place to start.

total loon.

[Okeefenokee]

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

As I outlined in last weekend’s column, we know that Clinton’s e-mails were replete with classified information. According to the FBI, the classified e-mails included intelligence graded at the most closely guarded level: eight top-secret e-mails, and seven designated as “special access program” (SAP) information. (While FBI director James Comey’s presentation understandably left this vague, the likelihood is that seven of the eight top-secret e-mails are SAP.) Under President Bill Clinton’s 1995 executive order, top-secret intelligence is information the mishandling of which “could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” The SAP designation is added when the unauthorized disclosure of intelligence could compromise critical intelligence-gathering methods or imperil the lives of intelligence sources.

That is why access to this information is so tightly restricted, and its unauthorized disclosure is routinely prosecuted.

With that as our backdrop, let’s get two things straight.

First, there is no lawyer exception to the federal criminal law that prohibits the transmission of classified information to unauthorized persons. When the government gives an official a security clearance, that does not mean any lawyer whom the official retains derivatively has one, too. The laws that make it a felony to transmit classified information to a person not authorized to have it apply whether the official transmits such information to the technician who services her private e-mail server or to her lawyers.

Second, merely having a security clearance — even a top-secret security clearance — does not make a person an authorized recipient of all classified information. Dissemination of a great deal of government intelligence, particularly if it is designated as SAP, is restricted to those officials who have been read into the program because they have a government-certified need to know the information in order to perform their duties.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/ ... clearance/

[clubgop]

Jesus Christ, this is how you talk when you win the election and both houses.

Good, now repeat it over and over again. No more excuses and dont let your fellow leftists make those excuses either. Accept that we won, accept that you lost. Accept that you have to listen, that you dont have all the answers maybe you don't have any. That is the root of many of these problems. Liberals, globalist, elites, establishment whatever the term is, thought power was their birthright that elections were forgone conclusions or mere suggestions. Voters never got that memo. Learn from it, stop trying to overturn it or make pitiful excuses.

LOL Because you’ll do that when your side loses an election. Hilarious.

Have absolutely done it. It's the only way you start winning again. I know you are a stupid child who doesn't know anything about this game because you cant even admit you are on a side. You are acting all but hurt and sore loser because you lost because you are a hack bitch just admit it. You weren't around in 2006 and 2012, I think it no small coincidence that since you came on the scene your stupid dumb ass gets dunked on all day and cant admit when he's wrong ever and just keeps holding these L's directly in parallel with your political party. At least here we get a confession from you. Sore loser bitches gotta stick together.

[Ph64]

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

As I outlined in last weekend’s column, we know that Clinton’s e-mails were replete with classified information. According to the FBI, the classified e-mails included intelligence graded at the most closely guarded level: eight top-secret e-mails, and seven designated as “special access program” (SAP) information. (While FBI director James Comey’s presentation understandably left this vague, the likelihood is that seven of the eight top-secret e-mails are SAP.) Under President Bill Clinton’s 1995 executive order, top-secret intelligence is information the mishandling of which “could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” The SAP designation is added when the unauthorized disclosure of intelligence could compromise critical intelligence-gathering methods or imperil the lives of intelligence sources.

That is why access to this information is so tightly restricted, and its unauthorized disclosure is routinely prosecuted.

With that as our backdrop, let’s get two things straight.

First, there is no lawyer exception to the federal criminal law that prohibits the transmission of classified information to unauthorized persons. When the government gives an official a security clearance, that does not mean any lawyer whom the official retains derivatively has one, too. The laws that make it a felony to transmit classified information to a person not authorized to have it apply whether the official transmits such information to the technician who services her private e-mail server or to her lawyers.

Second, merely having a security clearance — even a top-secret security clearance — does not make a person an authorized recipient of all classified information. Dissemination of a great deal of government intelligence, particularly if it is designated as SAP, is restricted to those officials who have been read into the program because they have a government-certified need to know the information in order to perform their duties.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/ ... clearance/

Face it, most people who have never held a clearance have no idea how it all works... They just think "oh, you had a Top Secret clearance therefore you must know what goes on at area 51, are there really aliens there?!?"

it's stupid, or course. Complete lack of understanding of "need to know". And, or course, SAP/SCI is a completely different ball of wax.

I remember when I left and was debriefed and had to sign away my life never to talk about classified projects you've worked on, the joke was the "correct answer" was "What projects?"

[Okeefenokee]

Look who's next,

Stefan Molyneux @stefanmolyneux
7 minutes ago
Within 24 hours, my YouTube channel has received two community guidelines strikes - likely as a result of a mass flagging campaign - and is now on the verge of total deletion.

[Okeefenokee]

Mastercard Forces Patreon to Remove ‘Jihad Watch’ Founder Robert Spencer From Platform

Robert Spencer is the author of 18 best-selling books and is demonized and labeled as an ‘Islamophobe’ just like Pam Geller simply for speaking the truth.

Patreon is a platform where bloggers, singers, artists etc can provide an income stream through ‘patrons’ or their ‘fans.’

But just like every other platform, Patreon is proving to be a place that only provides a service to people who bow down to the globalist agenda.

Robert Spencer said he was booted from the platform without warning at the request of Mastercard–the kicker? Robert Spencer doesn’t even have a Mastercard account!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/0 ... -platform/

“I don’t have a MasterCard and didn’t have one attached to my Patreon account, so MasterCard really wasn’t involved — unless it owns Patreon, which is apparently the case,” Robert Spencer said.

[Speaker to Animals]

Noticing a distinct drop in the snarky "the loss of net neutrality is going to be a disaster, lol" posts.