The lack of a legal Need to Know should cause a need to say "No!"

Smith should make it the 92nd criminal charge against Trump.

This is part and parcel of existing charges. But it doesn't fit the Tangerine Traitor's style to justify his treason based on the needs of others. Itis much easier to mislead his masses into believing in the power of an "Imperial President," who can violate and change laws at will, if it id based purely on his decision and not the reliability of others.

Yes, he should. And prosecute that charge vigorously.

Libs eat this shit up like it’s candy corn on Halloween. Just as fake as the corn, but they just can’t stop themselves from shoving it down their throat

I have been a "custodian," of Top Secret Documents and information covered by similar privacy laws. I never allowed information to get into the hands of anyone who did not have a legal Need to Know. That is why, unlike Edward Snowden, I am not Putin's permanent "guest."

I have as well. In particular SCI documents. Need to know is paramount. That concept is beyond Trump's comprehension.

Trump's behavior is dictated by his compulsive lying, aimed at inflating his Ego. He has a "Need to Blab."

And he mindlessly blabs at every opportunity.

And more bullshit

That "bullshit," is designed to keep our secrets, secret and your ungrateful butt safe. "Loose Lips Sink Ships" is still a valid reminder.

Yes…but what you think happened and what you know happened are miles apart, so again, bullshit

I am willing to accept what a jury of the Tangerine Traitor's fellow citizens decide is true and just. Are you?

If I thought it was a fair and impartial jury, sure I will.

A former fellow employee of mine served on the O.J. jury. She thought he did it but had to admit that it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People take jury duty seriously.

Have ever been on a jury?

I am a former Federal employee. I got my full salary every time I was called to serve. I was on three juries. One didn't hear a word of evidence before the parties settled. Another was a complicated DUI case. We found a guy, who we all thought was guilty, not guilty because the D.A. did not fully investigate and refute his story. "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt made us find him not guilty.

The CIA caught Bin Laden?
When did that occur.
I could of swore that Navy SEALs double-tapped him and fed his ass to the sharks in 2011.

The CIA located bin Laden.

He said “The CIA officer who ‘CAUGHT’ Bin Laden…”, now didn’t he?
He certainly didn’t say “located Bin Laden”, now did he?
Great! Now I’ve got two stalkers!

Mincing words

pfffffttttt

Paranoid much?

More bullshit.

Sorry, Larry... I'm not believing anything crooked Jack Smith leaks... LOL

☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️