It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wire Tap claim...timing...Exec Order 13489...could this be it?

page: 3
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vasa Croe


section 2204 are the restrictions that can be imposed by an Executive Order
So, you still didn't read Section 2205. Got it. But I thought you said the time limit thing was important.



His own EO allowing a change of circumstance in the release of confidential communications is what I am pointing out.
And you assume that Obama has something to hide? Why? Because Trump said so? Why is the DOJ scrambling to find evidence? "Time, more time! We don't know why the hell he said that!"



Yes I have read it over and over at this point because typically Phage posts are correct. Oddly this time you are not. 2205 states that all of those things occur except in the restrictions access imposed by 2204.

This means that whatever EO trumps 2205 and confidential communications can't be accessed by anyone in 2205 .

Asking for time would be exactly why the date is odd to me.



Phage is often PARTIALLY correct, which usually makes him incorrect but there is enough "right" to fool the uneducated.

Phage is so wrong right now it hurts and he's scrambling, it's quite comical.

@Phage -- congress cannot, absolutely CANNOT, just get any presidential record they want, tons of presidential records have security clearances that don't permit congress to even know they exist, so how can they request them?

What cartoon do you live in?

Congress demonstrably has virtually no power anymore, when they do request documents they come out with all the pertinent information redacted or get left hanging out right. You literally just said it yourself, congress asked POTUS for documents and POTUS still hasn't complied -- because he doesn't have to.

How can you realize that POTUS hasn't complied and then turn around and say Congress has access to any presidential record/document they want, whenever they want it?

You're really flailing here.
edit on 16-3-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP




Apparently Trump's tax records are not protected so your information is not protected either.

If the leaker of Trump's tax records is discovered they can, and should be, prosecuted.


The leaker? The leaker is MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, we already know they published illegal documents that were obtained also illegally. She isn't somehow allowed to publish confidential documents because someone gave them to her. She's more guilty than the "leaker" because she publicly released them.

It was illegal for Rachel to publish them, it was illegal for MSNBC to allow her to publish them. Are they in jail?

Do you not get it yet?

So, say I stole your taxes, you would identify me as the "leaker" when I give them to another person, is that other person no longer guilty of breaking the law when they publish the stolen taxes I gave them? No, in fact, if that other person never published them, nobody would have ever read them and they'd still be confidential.....

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You're just playing stupid now right?
edit on 16-3-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
What MSNBC did was clearly covered under First Amendment protections. They were not involved in the acquisition of these documents.

Cf. "The Pentagon Papers"

Compelling public interest.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What MSNBC did was clearly covered under First Amendment protections. They were not involved in the acquisition of these documents.

Cf. "The Pentagon Papers"

Compelling public interest.




How So? Even the IRS website says if someone gives you docs you should not give to anyone else and should report it.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What MSNBC did was clearly covered under First Amendment protections. They were not involved in the acquisition of these documents.

Cf. "The Pentagon Papers"

Compelling public interest.




How So? Even the IRS website says if someone gives you docs you should not give to anyone else and should report it.


1) Why not quote the IRS website statement that you are referring to?

2) The IRS doesn't countermand the First Amendment.

3) Did you lose your appetite to compare the Reagan and Obama EOs?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What MSNBC did was clearly covered under First Amendment protections. They were not involved in the acquisition of these documents.

Cf. "The Pentagon Papers"

Compelling public interest.




How So? Even the IRS website says if someone gives you docs you should not give to anyone else and should report it.


1) Why not quote the IRS website statement that you are referring to?

2) The IRS doesn't countermand the First Amendment.

3) Did you lose your appetite to compare the Reagan and Obama EOs?


Ok...apologies for not putting it all up sooner, but I have only had access to my phone for a bit and am just now able to sit at my computer to place it in front of you to read.

Here is the excerpt from the IRS doc I was referring to:



c. Section 7213(a)(3) makes it a criminal offense for any person to whom returns or return information is disclosed in a manner which is not authorized by Title 26 willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. In other words, a party who knowingly receives returns or return information in a manner not permitted by Title 26 may be subject to criminal sanctions if such party knowingly rediscloses, through some media, a return or return information in a manner not authorized by Title 26.


Link to IRS Publication

Section 7213(a)93) of US Code States:



(3) Other persons It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.


US Code 7213

So yeah....she and Johnston committed and illegal act on live TV. Not sure why both haven't been hung out to dry at this point, other than Trump just saying screw it, they made me look better and are going to get the public backlash which is punishment enough. The fact that MSNBC has not issued a statement on this is dumbfounding. She should be publicly apologizing really. Possibly even lose her job over this, but it seems that Liberal MSM doesn't have to hold themselves to laws and rules I guess.

As far as the Reagan Obama EO's matching, not really sure of your point here. So what if they match? My entire point was the timelines from the EO and the loophole in it to allow for Trump to check out the records even if Obama claimed privilege.

I can copy and paste them both here if you'd like, but I tend to think (sometimes to my detriment) that those here are able to search, find, and run text base comparisons online to see just what the differences are.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Thanks Vasa Croe for the IRS citations.

However, the other side of the issue is that Maddow and MSNBC are members of the Press, and as such, enjoy Constitutional protection for these actions.

I mentioned the Pentagon Papers to point to the SCOTUS decision in New York Times vs. United States (1971)




In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.

[...]

The Framers of the First Amendment, fully aware of both the need to defend a new nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments, sought to give this new society strength and security by providing that freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly should not be abridged.[8]


Yes, the 6-3 decision was specifically regarding revealing information the government was keeping hid and deceving the public about regarding the Vietnam War. HOWEVER ...



Legal experts say any case would be a long-shot given First Amendment protections for journalists and an important Supreme Court precedent that dates back to the famous 1971 “Pentagon Papers” case. Trump would also have to show that the journalists were complicit in stealing his tax returns—which both Johnston and Maddow have denied.

“Trump’s lawyers could try and sue but they will get the crap kicked out of them in court,” said veteran white collar attorney Stanley Arkin. “It’s the First Amendment. What are they going to sue them for? Stealing the returns? Nobody made any money out of it. Nobody was bribed.”


Fox Business
edit on 17-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Correction



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
As concerns the point of this thread, and my statement that Obama's EO 13489 substantially reinstated Reagan's EO 12667 ...

Text of Obama EO 13489

Text of Reagan EO 12667

They are 99% exactly the same except for Sections 5 & 6.

Here's Reagan's:



Sec. 5. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.


Here's Obama's:




Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.


Section 6 exists because Obama had to revoke George W. Bush's failed EO 13233.

The rest of the two documents are 99% the same; I invite anyone to take a look for themselves at the links above.
edit on 17-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah..i did a text based comparison as far as the differences. Like I said, the point is the EO and the PRA and the current issue. Reagan having a very similar EO has nothing to do with the reason I brought it up...its the possible timeline that brought it into question.



new topics




 
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join