Jump to content

TXSG8R

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TXSG8R

  1. 1 hour ago, ConferenceRoom said:


    Do you have to prove all that for an undesirable discharge?

    If oath keepers were recognized as a terrorist organization or something similar, it would be a slam dunk. As it is, you would have to prove direct participation of the individual in something against the govt since the entity isn’t recognized as something a service member can’t join. Plenty of BLM people did sketchy stuff after Floyd, but we aren’t painting the entire org as something criminal. The army’s definition for extremist groups is

    Quote

    Extremist organizations and activities are ones that advocate racial, gender, or ethnic hatred or intolerance; advocate, create, or engage in illegal discrimination based on race, color, gender, religion, or national origin, or advocate the use of or use force or violence or unlawful means to deprive individuals of their rights under the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States, or any State, by unlawful means.

    Until someone pins the tail on the donkey, the entity won’t be guilty because of the actions of some of its members. 

  2. 10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I would hope any active duty personnel who actually breached the Capitol would be discharged, pronto.  Maybe not if they were just part of the outside protest, assuming no violent behavior.

    Yes, anyone participating should be charged and punished. What I meant was that member of the oath keepers participating in j6 doesn’t necessarily mean the oath keepers as an entity is guilty of wanting to overthrow the govt. Some private in Kentucky joining for a cool sticker for his truck and patch for his jacket based on their literature wouldn’t be guilty of anything if their stated goal is to uphold their oath to the constitution. You would have to prove they knew they were joining a group adverse to the US govt. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  3. 31 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

     

    Can a member of the armed forces get dishonorably discharged for being a member?

     

    If yes, why not done?

    If no, why the hell not?

     

     

    I think you would have to prove they are adverse to the US govt. Literature/docs saying their stated goal is overthrowing the US govt, that sort of thing. I doubt their members participating in J6 would be enough. 

  4. I think what infuriates me the most (and most people that handle CI) is the complete gaslighting by the right on how this is NBD. The definition for classified info always contains “unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause x damage to the national security.”  You don’t punish based on actual damage, you punish based on expected damage to national security. These aren’t overdue library books. These aren’t a paperwork issue. It’s a serious fucking crime and we don’t have enough people making that point.  Congressional committee silence is deafening. 
     

    This is another example of what should be a slam dunk bipartisan issue. I get politicians like Rand Paul being partisan shitheels over this, but people that served in the military or on committees with national security concerns should be losing their shit over this. The “HilLaRy wAs WorSE” people saying digital stuff was a bigger risk are also completely full of shit. Yes, there is a larger risk surface for exposure, but it’s also much easier to forensically analyze said exposure and nail down who accessed what, for how long, etc. Physical media in the wild like this just needs to be presumed to be lost to all adversaries, because there is no way to trace who has accessed it, duplicated it, etc once it’s out of a SCIF. That presumption should be a huge factor in indictment and punishment. 
     

    Biden needs to sign an EO that formalizes a way to track physical media in and out of a SCIF (digital controls are already pretty tight). Create a new SF with material logging and third party (custodian) verification. It also needs to formalize the return of all CI at the end of a president’s tenure with third party auditing prior to the president and his cabinet’s personal belongings being shipped out of the WH grounds. Yes, this will create all kinds of hell for custodians, but the trust system has been exposed.  Fix it. 
     

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
    • Rage+1 1
  5. 7 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

    So if there is some sort of tracking mechanism for classified documents, don't they already know what is missing from the empty folders? 

    I'm cringing because I know deep down the government is still using the honor system or library check out system for this shit. 

    Full disclosure, I never handled anything above secret and never worked in a SCIF that had anything above TS, so I may be wrong for those items. Courier folders are serialized and track what was moved between storage areas. Within a SCIF it’s really up to the custodian and handler of the CI.  Documents require a cover folder/sheet when outside of storage. Custodians are required to have an inventory of what’s in their safe, but no formal checking in/out system beyond couriers AFAIK. Inventory is annual (? Local policy could increase reqt but I think annual is minimum) Generally, if an item is in a SCIF, you as a handler are required to show your clearance and need to know for the CI. POTUS or his cabinet get to skip that second part essentially, because POTUS.  Custodians don’t sit in the SCIF like a hall monitor, because they are bound by the same need to know rules as handlers.  So if Meadows walks in and says I need document X.  Custodian opens the safe, leaves the room. So yes, the honor system is a large part of this, because the penalties for anyone not POTUS are so severe that most people don’t push it. Inventory is also more about tracking loss in a catastrophic event and less about tracking items in and out. You as a handler log in and out of a SCIF, but you don’t log items in and out of storage, at least not on standard forms. 
     

    • Like 1
  6. 5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I talked about that some above.  The Supreme Court is definitely an issue and we've hashed that out.

    As far as lower court judges, Trump has appointed fewer than 30%.  So, still too many, but you have less than a 1 in 3 chance of drawing a Trump district judge, and less than that of getting a two-Trump appeal panel.

     

    If the final arbiters (SC, and many state/circuit courts) are stacked, what difference does that make? 

  7. One thing I’m curious about, does POTUS sign an NDA when setting up their handling of classified info like everyone else that gets a clearance?  I know the clearance portion is just given when taking the office, but I wonder if they still go through the paper drill with the NDA.  That would potentially be another violation they could hang him with. You agree not to discuss or reveal anything you handled post employment, for life. 

    • Like 1
  8. 45 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    I’ve wondered about that. Particularly, how did Trump manage to take possession of documents classified Top Secret/SCI? It’s been my understanding that those can only be viewed in a SCIF and that they remain in custody of whatever agency produced them. Some agent would bring them to the secure facility for review and then take them with them when they left. They couldn’t be checked out like a library book. For Trump to wind up in possession of the most classified of state secrets in his fucking luxury resort must mean that someone failed to do their job, right? Someone had to either be incompetent or complicit. My guess is the latter, perhaps someone in an “acting” capacity with Trump-mandated security clearance. But that’s just a guess. 

    I think the WH (not just Trumps) takes more leeway wrt the discussion/handling of classified info.  The PDB for example, contains plenty of classified info, and probably takes place in the Oval Office, dining room, possibly even the residence depending on the schedule/disposition of the president. What you have to remember is the president is the original classification authority. Everyone not in the big chair gets their authority to handle classified info delegated from the president, so I’m not sure what a custodian can do if an order comes from the WH saying “send these docs, don’t expect them back.” The WH custodian should probably be on the hook for something since storage/security would fall into their lap for anything transferred, but again, if POTUS says give me this classified doc, I don’t know what that person can do or say about it.

    This is another one of those not fully codified rules around the president that probably needs to be tightened up. Our system relies on a certain level of respect and trust for the office, power, and responsibilities. It’s hard to find a way to check this power without creating another avenue for partisan fuckery.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 35 minutes ago, speed817 said:

    Yes, there is typically a tracking system.  (FYI....I'm a SCIF custodian at my work place) 

    There is usually a list of documents that the security office will keep that knows the locations of all documents kept in safes inside the SCIFs on site.  These documents also have owners who are responsible for doing inventory every year and making sure these documents are where they are supposed to be.

    There is also tracking on who goes into and out of the SCIF.  From people entering the SCIF with their badges and key codes to open the door, sign in sheets upon entering if they are being escorted and sign in sheets on if you are opening the safe.  I'm going to assume that everyone in Trump's circle probably ignored all these protocols.

    My guess is most of this stuff wasn’t on site at the WH either, so there should be courier records for the movement from the pentagon or wherever they were stored to the WH SCIF as well. 

  10. 31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I concede that Trump has never been held accountable. 

    I am optimistic that the DOJ will do it this time and this is but a small twig in the path.  I am also optimistic that the Fulton County DA will do it this time.

    One thing we haven't discussed is that if an appeal is taken, and the lower court enjoined pending appeal, we're probably looking at a longer delay than just going through with the Special Master.

    So, if delay is important, and it is, then I don't like the appeal idea. Nor do I like the 11th Circuit's odds of undoing it or conversely fucking it up worse. Which is why I am rationalizing and explaining the district court's order.  We're fucking stuck with it.

    Is DOJ forced to appeal because of the bad precedent it would set if they go along with it?  Would it breathe more life into Trump and his cronies other claims of executive privilege?  

  11. 1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

    I can’t speak to the legal side of things (executive privilege bullshit) but a friend who has had a top secret clearance in the past at a defense contractor, mentioned that the classified stuff is governed by specific laws/statutes/national security stuff that this judge, etc. can’t touch. When he took the job and got the clearance/vetted, he had to go through a course about how classified stuff is handled.

    He lamented the fact that if he had taken even one secret or TS document home, he’d probably still be in prison.

    The president doesn’t apply for a clearance or get vetted. The second he’s seated he becomes the original classification authority.  Everyone else in his cabinet gets classification authority delegated from the president.  I’m sure they gave him a class that discussed his ability to classify/declassify and the grave responsibility he now has, and all he heard was he gets to do what he wants with classified shit. 

    He’s absolutely correct about the latter part though. 

  12. This paper thin defense is going to be hurting the second half of the season, but I like  what Napier is doing so far. Etienne needs more touches.  Him and AR on a speed option will be a load to deal with. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  13. 4 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

    One thing I would caution, this inventory doesn’t seem to differentiate between classified cover sheets/folders and documents with classified markings anywhere beyond the empty folders. It’s possible that some of the classified documents from those folders were uncovered.  Im sure the IC did a count on number of cover sheets/folders and number of individual artifacts presented to figure out if something is unaccounted for. 

    Apparently this has already been covered somewhat. 

    It will be difficult to nail down how many of those folders were tied to uncovered docs found elsewhere on site or if shit is just completely in the wind. Good thing we have a cooperative ex president that is more concerned about protecting the country’s secrets than his own personal gain…

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Rage+1 1
  14. One thing I would caution, this inventory doesn’t seem to differentiate between classified cover sheets/folders and documents with classified markings anywhere beyond the empty folders. It’s possible that some of the classified documents from those folders were uncovered.  Im sure the IC did a count on number of cover sheets/folders and number of individual artifacts presented to figure out if something is unaccounted for. 

  15. 34 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    Dumb question but just making sure- these empty folders/envelopes with markings also have some unique identifier so we should be able to know what is supposed to be inside each folder, right?  

    Usually no. The cover sheets are generic by design. We had a stack of them next to our secret stamp in our SCIF so if you printed something you had a cover sheet ready to go. 

  16. 57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    That's an example of the damned hyperbole that the anti-Trump press and pundits always seem to go for, without any basis in fact, that winds up undermining legitimate investigations and feeds talking points to the pro-Trump morons.

    We are probably never going to know exactly what the documents covered.

    Correct, “We can neither confirm nor deny” is the only allowable response to the public for any of this stuff. 

  17. 2 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

    Trump’s inability and/or disinterest in reading may help save his ass, because it’s less likely that his fingerprints will be on any document.

    Conversely, Trump’s fetish for showing documents to others in a symbolic manner as a show of power, may do him in.

    Would be great if he claims he didnt know shit about classified documents, then the state reveals his fingerprints are all over them.

    “That just proves he declassified them!”

    -Maga rube

  18. 2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    So crazy that Ms Bobb would risk her law license on the word of trump. I'm consistently caught off guard how a certain group of people just blindly believe someone because of their office and ignore the rest of that person's history. Or she's just a dumb fascist, either way. 

    She’s already dipped her toes into the RW media grift.  The money is probably better and it’s less work than lawyering, so I doubt she cares about her license if it translates into a permanent gig on FN. 

  19. 7 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

    C'mon guys. Imagine the hurrying around as Melania and Eric were packing boxes for the trip to Mar a Lago. It was probably getting late. Eric's usually keen mind was a little droopy. Mistakes were made, but it's understandable.

    You can barely tell Top Secret documents from newspapers and Big Mac wrappers. I mean just look at them, they're practically camouflaged!

    image.png.fcf5d192b5c9dd226e1812307877cc49.png

     

    You can  imagine Ivanka unpacking the boxes in Florida in her dad's office while he sat watching her ass. Ivanka works busily then pauses to consider:

    "Let's see. Passports and an address book should go in this drawer. And what are these innocent looking papers? Who can tell? I'll just put them in the same drawer for now until we figure out what they are."

     

    Yea, I asked about this early on when they were floating the “GSA packed and transported it, not us.”  There’s a zero percent chance a GSA employee would see these document cover sheets and not immediately leave the room and call his boss. This evidence removes any chance that this can be blamed on an accident or even negligence. This was intentional espionage. 

    • Hook 'Em 8
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...