'Horrifying': Intel Experts Fear The Human Costs Of Trump's Document Handling

[SkyFox76]

It

It absolutely does. The operative here is intent. Trump clearly intended to keep those materials and considered them personal property to do as he pleased with. Biden has shown no such intent and acted responsibly; whatever was found in his possession was returned immediately. It took a visit from the FBI to have Trump finally relinquish what he had taken, after several demands from NARA had been ignored.

I've also not seen any evidence that either Biden or Pence were sharing documents with others, while explaining to whoever "to not get too close". I still don't even know wth that was supposed to have meant. Were the documents going to jump up and pull their eyes out or something?

 

[upsideguy]

I don't know? I find that im often ahead of the curve.

Agreed, you are often 'out there' or off the road entirely....

 

[mrjurrs]

Those abroad providing intel to America will be reluctant to do so in the future. Foreign governments will also be wary to share information.

I don't think I really agree. Future intelligence gathering is still boosted by the US. I do think it will cost us more to have our partners get back on board.

 

[Lursa]

Why would Biden be on trial. He is the gold standard that everyone should strive to reach.

Nah, just the winning alternative we needed to kick mango MAGAt magnet's ass out of the WH.

And he's doing a pretty good job as POTUS.

 

[uptower]

 

[uptower]

We don't know how much or of what caliber has got into the wrong hands, if any. But I agree the potential human cost is high and could factor in sentencing. However let's not get all alarmist yet.

 

[Rexedgar]

I don't think I really agree. Future intelligence gathering is still boosted by the US. I do think it will cost us more to have our partners get back on board.

Trump trampled the norm when he hosted the Russian ambassador and the foreign secretary, shortly after he had fired Comey. Only Russian media had access, WTF?

 

[Tbird19482]

Trump trampled the norm when he hosted the Russian ambassador and the foreign secretary, shortly after he had fired Comey. Only Russian media had access, WTF?

and that is another thing that should be questioned. Just what did he tell them , just what were all of them doing in the oval office , How could he keep track of all of them walking around talking and NOT having any American there that could speak Russian,
could they have had a new very high tech bug we have no info on and we still have NO idea about it, heck if it was that good we still might not have found it yet.
and then again the time he and Putin talked with NO other American in the room
Trump has been a security risk from day one .and then he is saying he would believe Putin over our own Security people
Have a nice day

 

[pamak]

Actually the 'experts' (Mr. Comey and company) said flat out that Mrs. Clinton mishandled documents. Mr. Horowitz would later learn in his review of Comey's investigation that she was communicating with the president over this unsecured server.
Still the Obama/Biden DOJ didn't think it warranted a prosecution.

The 'experts' in the Biden White House have already admitted he had unauthorized possession of classified documents.
Then they lied... errrr made a mistake by saying all the documents were found.

Because the 'experts' (FBI) found more documents Biden had without authorization and stored in an unsafe locale.

If you were half honest, you would have pointed out that

1. Hillary was not prosecuted not only because of Obama/Biden DOJ's interpretations of the law but also because of Trump/Barr DOJ interpretation of the law

2 This interpretation was verified by the Trump/Barr Inspector General's report.

3 According to that report, the analysis of the "gross negligence" provision together with the legislative history (so, court interpretations) create a need for the prosecutors to prove conduct so gross that it is almost willful intent to mishandle documents

4 Because of 3, Biden and Pence cannot be charged with gross negligence of the documents they possessed. Both can claim in court that they were not aware of what staffers packed together with their personal belongings. As for Clinton, the prosecutors also could not prove that type of gross negligence or that she lied and refused to give to the documents all classified info. Mind you that the IG report mentioned that when the FBI attempted to recover the "missing emails" (which Hillary's lawyers deleted because they were personal) by examining emails of her associates for example, they did not recover any info that Clinton tried to deceive them. All of this is explained in the IG report https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/06/2016_election_final_report_06-14-18_0-2.pdf

5 In contrast of what is said in (4), there is clear evidence that Trump not only knew that he had classified documents, but he was discussing them with other people, was refusing to return them back to the US government and was talking with his lawyers about how they could get away with a subpoena to give back the classified documents in their possession

 

[pamak]

That isn't quite the argument.

It's that Clinton wasn't charged when she faced substantively the same allegations as Trump.

Ohh, you have been given repeated answers to your allegations.

AGAIN,


https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/06/2016_election_final_report_06-14-18_0-2.pdf

page 31

Given the absence of a definition of “gross negligence” in Section 793(f), the prosecutors researched state manslaughter statutes in effect at the time of the 1917 congressional debate, and determined that gross negligence was interpreted in that context to require wantonness or recklessness that was equivalent to criminal intent

In short, The DOJ did not have sufficient evidence to show Hillary's negligence was so gross that it was equivalent to criminal intent. While, she certainly intended to establish a private server, it does not mean that she did it in order to discuss classified information.

 

[Athanasius68]

Ohh, you have been given repeated answers to your allegations.

AGAIN,


https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/06/2016_election_final_report_06-14-18_0-2.pdf

page 31

Given the absence of a definition of “gross negligence” in Section 793(f), the prosecutors researched state manslaughter statutes in effect at the time of the 1917 congressional debate, and determined that gross negligence was interpreted in that context to require wantonness or recklessness that was equivalent to criminal intent

In short, The DOJ did not have sufficient evidence to show Hillary's negligence was so gross that it was equivalent to criminal intent. While, she certainly intended to establish a private server, it does not mean that she did it in order to discuss classified information.

Shrug-- the FBI found documents from his Senate days in his house.
Not allowed to be taken.

 

[MTAtech]

Shrug-- the FBI found documents from his Senate days in his house.
Not allowed to be taken.

Once again, you are being dishonest. The Senate papers were not at his home. Additionally, files of Congress members are considered their personal property and are not subject to the same restrictions as presidential records.

Claims misrepresent 1,850 boxes of Biden documents at Delaware university

False. The National Archives and Records Administration says the boxes of files referenced in that figure are actually Biden’s Senate papers, which are housed at the University of Delaware.

apnews.com

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The National Archives and Records Administration says the boxes of files referenced in that figure are actually Biden’s Senate papers, which are housed at the University of Delaware. The federal agency told The Associated Press the files of Congress members are considered their personal property and are not subject to the same restrictions as presidential records, which are considered government property. While the FBI has searched the Delaware university records as part of a larger search for classified documents, there is no evidence they were withheld from authorities in any way.

 

[pamak]

Shrug-- the FBI found documents from his Senate days in his house.
Not allowed to be taken.

LOLOL

Of course you reply with a shrug to my points because you do not have an answer. Just because someone takes by accident documents that are not allowed to be taken, it does not mean that he can be charged based on the law you cited.

If this was about Trump, you would have posted countless messages arguing that the law is vague about the definition of "gross negligence," or that the courts should interpreter such definition in favor of the defense. But because you are a shameless hypocrite, you do not do that. You simply assert that taking documents which you should not have satisfies for you the definition of being gross negligent and the courts should accept your definition.


Now feel free to crawl back to your hole . I am sure I will see you again after a couple of weeks making the exact same argument talking to other posters hoping that I will not be around.

 

[Athanasius68]

LOLOL

Of course you reply with a shrug to my points because you do not have an answer. Just because someone takes by accident documents that are not allowed to be taken, it does not mean that he can be charged based on the law you cited.

If this was about Trump, you would have posted countless messages arguing that the law is vague about the definition of "gross negligence," or that the courts should interpreter such definition in favor of the defense. But because you are a shameless hypocrite, you do not do that. You simply assert that taking documents which you should not have satisfies for you the definition of being gross negligent and the courts should accept your definition.


Now feel free to crawl back to your hole . I am sure I will see you again after a couple of weeks making the exact same argument talking to other posters hoping that I will not be around.

Not at all. Once the facts were clear, I've said that they had Trump dead to rights, that he would be indicted, and agreed with Sen Romney that he did it all to himself.

But what I have also said is said is that possessing such documents outside its secure location is also a crime, there is no 'oops' defense to it, that the facts of the Biden situation show that he is a serial abuser of mishandling such documents, and that the Trump situation is substantively no different than the Clinton situation of several years ago.

 

[Athanasius68]

Once again, you are being dishonest. The Senate papers were not at his home. Additionally, files of Congress members are considered their personal property and are not subject to the same restrictions as presidential records.

Claims misrepresent 1,850 boxes of Biden documents at Delaware university

False. The National Archives and Records Administration says the boxes of files referenced in that figure are actually Biden’s Senate papers, which are housed at the University of Delaware.

apnews.com

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The National Archives and Records Administration says the boxes of files referenced in that figure are actually Biden’s Senate papers, which are housed at the University of Delaware. The federal agency told The Associated Press the files of Congress members are considered their personal property and are not subject to the same restrictions as presidential records, which are considered government property. While the FBI has searched the Delaware university records as part of a larger search for classified documents, there is no evidence they were withheld from authorities in any way.

Classified documents dating from his Senate days were found in his possession.
That's what I said-- not that he had in his possession documents relating to his Senate days.

 

[pamak]

Not at all. Once the facts were clear, I've said that they had Trump dead to rights, that he would be indicted, and agreed with Sen Romney that he did it all to himself.

But what I have also said is said is that possessing such documents outside its secure location is also a crime, there is no 'oops' defense to it, that the facts of the Biden situation show that he is a serial abuser of mishandling such documents, and that the Trump situation is substantively no different than the Clinton situation of several years ago.

You can say such things to fools but your dirty tactics are obvious. You tried to equate Trump's case to Biden's and Clinton's cases in order to argue that Trump is a political victim of "Biden's DOJ" and that either everybody should be charged or nobody. You did this by applying double standards on how you approach the legal requirements of a conviction and by creating your own definitions of the term "gross negligence" which exists in the statute that you claim it applies to Biden's and Clinton's cases. The problem is that your definition of gross negligence has nothing to do with the legislative history of the term and with the interpretation of the term by the DOJ under TWO DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS (Obama's and Trump's) which came as a result of studying such legislative history.

Mind you, it is clear from previous posts of yours that you are very well aware that for successful convictions, prosecutors must make legal interpretations based on specific legal terms and that vagueness in law benefits the defense. This was revealed when Trump was the target of a law that you thought was vague which created (as you claimed) a problem for the prosecutors. Here is the actual quote I refer to

Yes-- this was known. The problem the DOJ had is that the law is vague. Election law guys dispute over exactly what the law means.
Does paying a mistress need to be done using campaign funds?

But when you want to talk about Biden's mishandling of classified documents, you do not care about specificity and you go full speed ahead with vagueness. So in the law that you cited, even though it is clear that there is not any definition of the term "gross negligence," you do not see any "problem" for the DOJ in using such law to convict Biden (or Hillary). You just decided to demonstrate a slight of hand and intellectual dishonesty and you argued instead that finding classified documents in Biden's garage )or Clinton's emails) satisfies somehow the "gross negligence" requirement of the statute which you cited. Thus, you argue that Biden's (and Clinton's) case can be proven in court just like Trump's case.


You are just a dishonest political debater.

 

[MTAtech]

Classified documents dating from his Senate days were found in his possession.
That's what I said-- not that he had in his possession documents relating to his Senate days.

Those documents were found during a consensual search of Biden's home. There is no indication that he knew about them and clear indication that he wasn't trying to keep them as his, unlike He Who Must Not Be Named. Intent is important here.

 

[Athanasius68]

Those documents were found during a consensual search of Biden's home.

So what? It was either going to consensual, or a warrant would be obtained.
Politically, the former is more desirable than the latter.

There is no indication that he knew about them and clear indication that he wasn't trying to keep them as his, unlike He Who Must Not Be Named. Intent is important here.

It is against the law to have those documents where they were.
Mr. Biden has been in public office for 50 years. He knows about this stuff. He does not, as he claimed, take the laws about this seriously.
Gross negligence is the standard.

 

[MTAtech]

So what? It was either going to consensual, or a warrant would be obtained.
Politically, the former is more desirable than the latter.

It is against the law to have those documents where they were.
Mr. Biden has been in public office for 50 years. He knows about this stuff. He does not, as he claimed, take the laws about this seriously.
Gross negligence is the standard.

You can harp on that all that you like and ignore intent. There was no indication that he knew those documents were their and when informed returned them. That's 180 different than The Former Guy that hindered their return; told his lawyers to lie and attest that they were all returned; move them so that they wouldn't be found; and claimed the docs were his. If you can't recognize the distinction, there is no use maintaining this discussion.

 

[Athanasius68]

You can harp on that all that you like and ignore intent. There was no indication that he knew those documents were their and when informed returned them. That's 180 different than The Former Guy that hindered their return; told his lawyers to lie and attest that they were all returned; move them so that they wouldn't be found; and claimed the docs were his. If you can't recognize the distinction, there is no use maintaining this discussion.

I am not ignoring intent. Its been claimed that intent is what matters.
In other words, there is no crime in having unauthoized possession of such documents in an unsecured location, as long as it is returned upon request.
But that isn't true.

The real comparison though to be made is between Trump and Clinton.

 

[eohrnberger]

I am not ignoring intent. Its been claimed that intent is what matters.
In other words, there is no crime in having unauthoized possession of such documents in an unsecured location, as long as it is returned upon request.
But that isn't true.

The real comparison though to be made is between Trump and Clinton.

Yeah, Hillary's whitewash FBI investigation, run by Strzok if I'm not mistaken vs. the investigative malfeasance, also run by Strzok & Page & McCabe.
The 'just us' system at work.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yeah, Hillary's whitewash FBI investigation, run by Strzok if I'm not mistaken vs. the investigative malfeasance, also run by Strzok & Page & McCabe.
The 'just us' system at work.

Are you quoting from the Durham report here?

Or do you discount the results of Trump's investigation into these matters in favor of your imagination?

 

[eohrnberger]

Are you quoting from the Durham report here?

Or do you discount the results of Trump's investigation into these matters in favor of your imagination?

That Strzok was conducting the Hillary email scandal investigation and the Crossfire-Hurricane investigation is a matter of public record from multiple sources.

Your BS is dismissed.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That Strzok was conducting the Hillary email scandal investigation and the Crossfire-Hurricane investigation is a matter of public record from multiple sources.

Your BS is dismissed.

The evidence of Strzok's wrongdoing is publicly available, but Durham was unable to uncover it?

The evidence of Strzok's wrongdoing is publicly available, but it wasn't actually criminal?

The evidence of Strzok's wrongdoing is publicly available, but the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy™ covered it up?

Or what exactly?

 

[eohrnberger]

The evidence of Strzok's wrongdoing is publicly available, but Durham was unable to uncover it?

The evidence of Strzok's wrongdoing is publicly available, but it wasn't actually criminal?

The evidence of Strzok's wrongdoing is publicly available, but the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy™ covered it up?

Or what exactly?

You are either feigning ignorance or are really ignorant. Either way it's a you problem not for me to solve.