• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A federal judge ordered the DOJ to release a memo that Bill Barr used to clear Trump of obstruction of justice, saying 'it is time for the public to s

MTAtech said:
That's your bald attempt to deflect from this thread, which is about Bill Barr's misdeeds, not HRC.
Click to expand...
I didn't deflect. My mentioning Hillary was support for my comment about Barr.

It's other members who got triggered and wanted to talk about Hillary.
 
yankintx said:
Do you ever tire of using the phrase dismissed?

The rest of us sure do
Click to expand...

He says that when he cannot refute an argument. I imagine he feels it makes him look distinguished or some crap.
 
Tahuyaman said:
She sent and received classified information on an unsecured and privately owned server. Others had been prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison for the exact same thing. Plus she lied under oath. That too is a crime.
Click to expand...
Sheesh, we now know the Trump guys in Ukraine and elsewhere used an unsecured cell phones to talk directly with POTUS and used a privately owned messaging system to communicate - WhatsApp as I recall - and no one blinked an eye about it, despite it being well known known that Russia has hacked the Ukraine cell phone system, and no doubt heard every word spoken to POTUS, who also used his cell phone, so they probably had both sides covered.

I'd also love for the Democrats in the House to subpoena all of Jared and Ivanka's personal email and their messages and see what kind of classified info went across on other-than-official channels. Then do the same for Rudy and the foreign policy team. Bottom line is no one cared before or after Hillary about this stuff, but for a brief few years it was critical that only officially sanctioned channels be used by the foreign policy people.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Yes. Because it's a lie.
Click to expand...
So, you think no one has been prosecuted and convicted for doing what Hillary Clinton did? Seriously?
TheDoctorWasIn said:
No civilian has ever been charged for what Clinton did - let alone prosecuted or convicted of it.
Click to expand...
Many people have been prosecuted and convicted of that. It’s a criminal act to send and receive classified information on an unsecured private system.
 
Tahuyaman said:
So, you think no one has been prosecuted and convicted for doing what Hillary Clinton did? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Tahuyaman said:
Many people have been prosecuted and convicted of that. It’s a criminal act to send and receive classified information on an unsecured private system.
Click to expand...

Again, this is false. It won't become true just because you keep repeating it.

Absent a finding of scienter (bad faith, intent, etc), no civilian has ever been convicted under the Espionage Act. There's even a Supreme Court case that suggests it would be unconstitutional to do so.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Yes, that is what I am saying.



Again, this is false. It won't become true just because you keep repeating it.

Absent a finding of scienter (bad faith, intent, etc), no civilian has ever been convicted under the Espionage Act. There's even a Supreme Court case that suggests it would be unconstitutional to do so.
Click to expand...
This is unbelievable. Who seriously believes that no one has been prosecuted for sending and receiving classified information over a privately owned unsecured system?
 
Accidentally sending or receiving classified information over unclassified systems is so common there's a term for it - "spillage" - but no one has ever been criminally prosecuted for it under the Espionage Act.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Accidentally sending or receiving classified information over unclassified systems is so common there's a term for it - "spillage" - but no one has ever been criminally prosecuted for it under the Espionage Act.
Click to expand...


Great point, This is the Symantec's to be played though.

If there was a charge and not saying HRC is guilty. but a charge. She goes to court and proves her "innocence' that her action was accidental. Also having a private server while not a felony or malicious. The courts could exonerate or acquit her of the charges she could face.


The FACTS is though, HRC did have a unauthorized private server. HRC did in fact transmit classified documents over this unauthorized server. These are worthy of charges if a prosecutor wanted to charge someone. She was not the POTUS so not protected by ANY charging guidelines.

AG Lynch did in fact state she took the recommendation of the FBI director to not charge HRC as well as from department standards offered by here department lawyers.
AG Lynch created terrible optics by meeting with Bill Clinton on the Tarmac PRIOR to her statement of no charges with HRC.


NOW, Trump on the other hand. What ACTUAL crime in regards to Volume 1 was committed? We know Russian Setup Bots, We know Russia tried to hack the DNC. Was there are crime by Trump or his team to coordinate, collude, conspire with Russia? NO. There was no underlying crime FOUND. PERIOD.

HRC Did have an Underlying Crime, that being having an unauthorized sever and transmitting classified documents. She would have had the right to defend herself in court and saying she didnt know it was unauthorized and that she was unaware that it was classified documents. Thus then cleared and then we can move on with our lives.

TRUMP on the other hand. Was not part of ANY crime. Falsely accused of crimes and then took actions to which people considered it "Obstruction"

Firing Comey, that requires NO reason, he can fire him for ANY reason,
Obstructing Mueller, which Mueller was able to complete his special council duties unobstructed.
Trump exercised no Executive Privilege's at all.

What crime did Trump try to obstruct? When no crime a was found in Volume 1 when the accused obstruction had to do with the accusations in Volume 1?
 
Exactice said:
If there was a charge and not saying HRC is guilty. but a charge. She goes to court and proves her "innocence' that her action was accidental. Also having a private server while not a felony or malicious. The courts could exonerate or acquit her of the charges she could face.


The FACTS is though, HRC did have a unauthorized private server. HRC did in fact transmit classified documents over this unauthorized server. These are worthy of charges if a prosecutor wanted to charge someone. She was not the POTUS so not protected by ANY charging guidelines.
Click to expand...

What "charges" do you think would be appropriate?

You can only charge someone with a crime - you can't charge them with feelings.
 
Tahuyaman said:
Evidently that excludes you. Members of the military have been prosecuted for mishandling classified information in that way.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton is not, and has never been a member of the military.

You understand that the UCMJ does not apply to civilians, right?
 
Exactice said:
Great point, This is the Symantec's to be played though.

If there was a charge and not saying HRC is guilty. but a charge. She goes to court and proves her "innocence' that her action was accidental. Also having a private server while not a felony or malicious. The courts could exonerate or acquit her of the charges she could face.


The FACTS is though, HRC did have a unauthorized private server. HRC did in fact transmit classified documents over this unauthorized server. These are worthy of charges if a prosecutor wanted to charge someone. She was not the POTUS so not protected by ANY charging guidelines.

AG Lynch did in fact state she took the recommendation of the FBI director to not charge HRC as well as from department standards offered by here department lawyers.
AG Lynch created terrible optics by meeting with Bill Clinton on the Tarmac PRIOR to her statement of no charges with HRC.


NOW, Trump on the other hand. What ACTUAL crime in regards to Volume 1 was committed? We know Russian Setup Bots, We know Russia tried to hack the DNC. Was there are crime by Trump or his team to coordinate, collude, conspire with Russia? NO. There was no underlying crime FOUND. PERIOD.

HRC Did have an Underlying Crime, that being having an unauthorized sever and transmitting classified documents. She would have had the right to defend herself in court and saying she didnt know it was unauthorized and that she was unaware that it was classified documents. Thus then cleared and then we can move on with our lives.

TRUMP on the other hand. Was not part of ANY crime. Falsely accused of crimes and then took actions to which people considered it "Obstruction"

Firing Comey, that requires NO reason, he can fire him for ANY reason,
Obstructing Mueller, which Mueller was able to complete his special council duties unobstructed.
Trump exercised no Executive Privilege's at all.

What crime did Trump try to obstruct? When no crime a was found in Volume 1 when the accused obstruction had to do with the accusations in Volume 1?
Click to expand...
In brief, Hillary Clinton committed a criminal act and lied about it under oath. She destroyed evidence which was under subpoena and the Obama justice department let her off the hook.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Hillary Clinton is not, and has never been a member of the military.

You understand that the UCMJ does not apply to civilians, right?
Click to expand...
You don’t need to be a member of the military to be charged with illegal handling of classified information. Civilian government employees have been charged with this on occasion.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
What "charges" do you think would be appropriate?

You can only charge someone with a crime - you can't charge them with feelings.
Click to expand...
Great questions acutally.


I just did a quick google search

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information​


www.law.cornell.edu

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

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

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


Still looking and having an unauthorized server. Sorry I am not a lawyer so just reading and learning as I go..
 
Tahuyaman said:
You don’t need to be a member of the military to be charged with illegal handling of classified information.
Click to expand...

There is no crime called "illegal handling of classified information".

Tahuyaman said:
Civilian government employees have been charged with this on occasion.
Click to expand...

Not without proof of intent.
 
Tahuyaman said:
In brief, Hillary Clinton committed a criminal act and lied about it under oath. She destroyed evidence which was under subpoena and the Obama justice department let her off the hook.
Click to expand...
Thats is ANOTHER part of the equation.

Yes she did lie and had intentionally servers wiped clean.... AFTER a subpoena was issued .
 
Exactice said:
Great questions acutally.


I just did a quick google search

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information​


www.law.cornell.edu

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

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

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


Still looking and having an unauthorized server. Sorry I am not a lawyer so just reading and learning as I go..
Click to expand...

You have to read the statutes, not just the titles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom