KanchanaburiGuy

Yes, in fact, it can be a defense in court.

Maybe you need to try being civil rather than snarky.

Why does everyone forget that the boy gets killed at the end of the story, because there WAS a wolf, that time? Lol

Thank you. I had never seen this. [Picture me a little red-faced! Lol]

Actually, if the "defendant" can show that it was the government itself that created the confusion........... it is. (I got a speeding ticket thrown out for this very reason. I was able to show that a particular stretch of road in Anacortes, WA, actually had TWO posted speed limits, depending on how you arrived on that particular stretch of road. They threw out the ticket because the government itself had created the confusion.)

Once again, nearly everyone seems to breeze past the point that as a past President, Mr Trump almost certainly gets handed classified material on a regular basis. Ex-Presidents have always been kept abreast of the current and ongoing situations of the Nation. They are considered a resource. They are people who happen to be uniquely qualified to provide suggestions, advise, and help to a sitting President, should that be needed. But to BE a resource, they need to be kept informed. So they are! So, why would a guy who regularly gets handed classified material............ ever believe he wasn't entitled to have classified materials in his possession? If youre going to send out mixed messages........... don't get tweaked when the person you're interacting with.......... doesn't behave the way you think he should! Lol

Spidermike: "Does that mean it does not exist?" No, it means it is time to start asking questions and trying to confirm its existence. It doesn't mean it's time to automatically conclude therefore that it does. Belief proves nothing. Sincere belief proves nothing. Being absolutely certain in your belief proves nothing. Indeed, being absolutely certain in one's beliefs only means a person has become too tired, lazy or frustrated to keep asking questions. So they grab onto any answer they feel comfortable with....... probably something that people they like and admire agree with and speak favorably about......... and they stop caring whether it's true or not! But stopping asking questions......... is not the same thing....... as finding actual answers! Ultimately, asking "If you can't see it, touch it, feel it....... does that mean it doesn't exist?" is the wrong question. It's asking someone to prove a negative, which we all know can't be done. The right approach is to require someone who claims something DOES exist....... to prove it. And if all they can present is their belief that it exists......... well......... Belief proves nothing----Never has, never will. Belief can be strong enough to make you stop asking questions. But belief will never be strong enough eliminate the need to ask more and better questions......... if what you really want is the truth!

You raise an interesting question, one I've never considered. I've always heard of "Attorney-Client Privilege" in the context of things an Attorney cannot reveal about his or her Client. But in this case, the records have been taken directly FROM THE CLIENT. Therefore, there's no need for sheltering by an attorney. The records came directly from the client, so no "middleman" [the attorney] was involved! But if "Attorney-Client Privilege" is still an issue......... doesn't that suggest that the it's THE ATTORNEY that is seeking protection from the "Privilege," not the Client? It has never occurred to me before that "Attorney-Client Privilege" may sometimes be called-upon to protect THE ATTORNEY........ rather than the Client! It has never occurred to me that the concept can be applied both ways! Heck........I dont even know if it can! At a minimum, anyway, it seems to me that "Attorney-Client Privilege" cannot be an issue........... when the information is coming directly from the Client. Direct collection from the Client makes the Attorney's role moot. Unless.............

Lol Even in The Andy Griffith Show from the early 60's, the town drunk, Otis, was effectively given a pass. He got drunk, wandered into the jail, and spent the night there to "sleep it off." In the morning, Andy and Barney would bid him a "Good Mornin', Otis" and Otis would amble on out the door. No booking. No charges. No arraignment. No judges. But definitely, unquestionably drunk. Lol Now, you might say, "Yeah, but that's fiction." But think about it. Do you think The Andy Griffith Show could have gotten away with how Otis was managed by the Sheriff, rather than prosecuted.......... if Americans of that era hadn't recognized that as typical and expected Small Town behavior? Yes, Otis was the town drunk, second. But he was their neighbor and a member of the community, first. And that's how they treated him........ Not as a Law and Order problem, but as a neighbor WITH a problem. The point is........ Discretion is not a new idea. 60 years ago, it even played a part as a recurring idea on one of the major TV sitcoms of the era. ---------------- ---------------- (((The actor's name was Hal Smith. He had another role at the same time playing "The Pancake Man" on a local Los Angeles children's show sponsored by The International House of Pancakes [IHOP]. My father worked for IHOP at the time......."I hop, you hop, we all hop for IHOP!" Lol ........... as a training coordinator. But he also had the responsibility of finding ways to work creative versions of pancakes [International Pancakes] into the "Pancake Man" story lines. We had Mr Smith over for dinner a few times, to treat him to "a home cooked meal." Lol [My grandma's foil-wrapped Pot Roast with the Lipton Onion Soup topper and roast potatoes was to die for! Lol] I recall him being a nice man and a friend to my dad, but nothing else.))) Ah, isn't it true: Every life is a fascinating life, because everyone lives many lives.......... on their journey from birth to death!

Lol Remember......... His Game show/Reality show "The Apprentice" was based entirely on "hiring" a bunch of "wrong" people.......... then he "You're Fired!" them one by one, until there was one "right" person left. Lol Before he was elected and shortly thereafter, people kept saying he was going to be able to get great people. I responded, "Look at The Apprentice. He usually chooses veryn very poorly, not great people!" His rapid revolving-door administration proved me right. In, out. In, out. Indeed, in the last two years, he basically stopped giving people the job! They were all "temps" or "acting" So and So's! Hahahaha

Actually, pretty much everything you said was thoroughly addressed in my first post in this thread, not many posts upthread from the one you responded to. Thanks anyway, though. Lol

The President's job is not in the White House or the Oval Office. The President's job is wherever the President happens to be. When the President is on Air Force One, that's where his job is. When he's on Marine 2, that's where his job is. When he's in Asia to meet with Kim Jong Un, that's where the job is. When Obama spent a lot of time on golf courses, that's where the job was. When Trump spent even more time on golf courses, that's where the job was. And when President Trump was spending considerable time at Mar-a-Lago instead of the White House, that's where the job was! The point is, it doesn't matter where he was when he was handed those documents. Because wherever he was........... that's where the job was! The Presidency is absolutely NOT a 9-to-5 Office Job! The President's "Office"......... is wherever the President happens to be!

Donald Trump is a narcissistic buffoon. As a narcissistic buffoon, he would believe rules only apply to him if he decides they apply to him. And that means that whenever he can justify to himself that a certain rule doesn't apply......... that's what he's going to do! ------------------ ------------------ Now, as a former President, Donald Trump probably gets exposed to classified materials each and every day. Former Presidents are kept abreast of current and ongoing events in case they're needed as a final fallback should a catastrophe occur, and all Constitutional Leadership be killed or incapacitated. (When all the "qualified" people are unavailable, the next logical extra-Constitutional choice to lead the country......... is someone who has done the job before!) So, how might this shape what Trump has apparently done?........... First, because Mr Trump gets handed classified material on a regular basis.......... probably daily......... it would be easy for a person like him to conclude he is entitled to keep and store whatever classified materials he has in his possession. That's how HE would probably interpret it! Second, while there are processes and procedures that should be followed to declassify documents, there also must be exceptions extended to a President for "exigent circumstances." For example, say Canada is decides to attack Greenland based on faulty information, and the President has a "classified document" in his hands that can PROVE the information is false, thereby averting a major catastrophe. What he has is a "classified document" that can end the crisis. What he doesn't have............ is TIME! The President must have the ability to "instantly declassify" that document, to prevent this major mistake. He has to be able to react in the moment, without fear of censure, reprisal or impeachment. A narcissistic buffoon like Mr Trump would likely interpret this to mean..............."I have the right to declassify anything I want, whenever I want!" ----------------- ----------------- Because a narcissistic buffoon is trying find any and every reason to say that someone else's rules should not apply to them........... they would think just like that! Am I saying Trump deserves to be let off the hook for whatever "hook" he may be on? Nope! I'm just trying to show that from Trump's point of view........... and with Trump's personality.......... there are reasons why he may not believe he's done anything wrong! I mean, how would YOU react if someone gave you classified material on a regular basis......... maybe even daily....... then suddenly claims you're doing something wrong by being in possession of "classified material?" Personally........ I'd at least be a little baffled by the inconsistency of it! How about you?