• 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!

How Serious Is This? Consider What The FBI Would Do To Us

Airyaman said:
Oh, no doubt the average citizen would be ****ed. But let's get real, ex-presidents are above the law for the most part, like it or not (I don't like).
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this is, to a good extent, a biproduct of our jury of your peers system. While that may seem like "well charge them anyway" is good policy, the charges have to still be very well supported even if your chances of getting a conviction are only 50/50. All it takes is for one juror to be a stringent supporter of whoever the person is to cause a hung jury/mistrial. Chances are in a population where 1/3 of the people believe a certain person can do no wrong, is being framed, some even believe is Jesus, wrongfully persecuted, you are going to have a very hard time finding 12 completely or mostly impartial jurors, who really would consider the facts, evidence and not let their feelings/beliefs interfere.

And I realize that the opposite could be true too, where one or just a few insist that they must be guilty based on their own bias, but having that is far less likely to get a conviction (you have to get all 12 to agree to convict) than having the other way is to get enough mistrials to get acquitted/charges dropped.
 

Heres the thing....

So far, most everything that has come to light seems to point in the direction of a least some impropriety on his part. As has been stated repeatedly, the status of the documents doesn't even matter at this point. The fact of the matter is that there is question of whether or not he was supposed to be in possession of them at all. Hard to prove that as a lie since we saw the pictures of agents carrying boxes of documents out of the residence. That kinda means they were there, thus lending credence to the question of the legality of his having them.

As for your contention that I somehow hate Donald Trump....you couldn't be more wrong. On a personal level, I don't give a shit about him one way or the other. As a citizen, I want him nowhere near the levers of power as long as he draws breath on this Earth....not because I hate him, but because I don't find him fit to be in such a position.

You wanna talk about being fed false narratives.....you are here defending the actions of a man who basically called you and everyone who supports him mindless drones, as he claimed he could literally shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose a single supporter. The sad part is that given your and lots of other peoples actions, he might actually be right about that, thus sadly making it not even a false narrative.

Only one of us has been bought part and parcel, and I can assure you its not me. Sadly, you can't even see how deep you are into it.
 

Lol.....actions speak otherwise. "Russian Collusion Delusion", "Impeachment Hoax 1 and 2", "the Charlottesville Lie", "the Tear Gassed Photo Op", "Lab Leak was a Conspiracy", "Russian bounties on US Soldiers", "Told Ga. officials to Find the Fraud", "referred to illegal immigrants as animals", "said Trump lied that his administration was being wire tapped",......these are just for starters.

We NOW know who stands with the liars.
 

I see where your problem is now....

You seem to think that the Republican controlled Congress choosing to kowtow to Trump and not do what was right means that all of the evidence presented to them simply didn't exist or was even worse, fake.

Every one of the examples you provided has enough evidence behind it to convince anyone who isn't a full on kool aid drinking cultist that they did indeed happen, at least to some extent. I mean hell, we have the phone call of him telling the GA AG to find him 1100 votes. We ****ing heard it. Nobody has to make this stuff up....in this case, as with most things Trump, the truth is actually stranger and more dangerous than fiction.

And yes, we have all been clear you stand with a liar. That has never been in question.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Every one of the examples you provided has enough evidence behind it to convince anyone who isn't a full on kool aid drinking cultist that they did indeed happen, at least to some extent.
Click to expand...

And usually out of context. Like the Russian Collusion Delussion. Mueller found no collusion with Trump and the Russians to overturn the election.

But the Democrats said it created many Russian indictments...even though it had nothing to do with Trump.
 

There's no convincing someone, who still, even after the narratives have been proven absolutely false continues to believe them as if they're the gospel truth, lol. Gossipers, the whole lot.
 
Does that include having classified documents on your home server like Hillary?
 

From your source:

The letter suggests that the universe of highly sensitive documents that passed through Clinton’s unsecured server goes beyond what was previously known. During the Clinton email release process, State has designated more than 1,300 of Clinton’s emails at the “confidential” level or beyond...'

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan....​

1. "Some or All" of the SAP emails is not "all of the TS//SCI emails. Comey announced 22 Top Secret email chains and 7 SAP ones.

2. Even if it is generally known that the U.S. has drones, discussion of operations within a SAP is still SAP material, and not for putting on things like unclass servers, because doing so is a violation of the law if you lack the authority to do so (which, as SECSTATE, Hillary lacked)
 
Yet amazingly Hillary's server was far more secure than the govts one. Which was hacked repeatedly during her tenure. There is not one bit of evidence that hers was ever hacked. Hillary had ever right to have those emails as SOS and the FBI found no evidence of wrongdoing. Trump taking 11 sets of secret documents with him when he left the Whitehouse was wrong from the start and far more egregious than anything Hillary was even accused of. There really is no comparison but you know that and are reaching badly.
 
iguanaman said:
Yet amazingly Hillary's server was far more secure than the govts one
Click to expand...

There is nothing I'm particularly aware of that indicates that, however, it is also irrelevant.


iguanaman said:
Hillary had ever right to have those emails as SOS
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. as SoS, Hillary had the right to put classified State Department information on unclass servers if she wanted to. She did not have the right to do that (as she did) with DOD information, CIA information, NSA information, or NGA information.


iguanaman said:
and the FBI found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

That is also incorrect - the FBI was blunt that wrongdoing had occurred, and that any reasonable person would have known that what they were doing was wrong. Comey took Strzok's invention of the new standard of "extreme carelessness" in lieu of gross negligence, and added additional barriers to the statute that aren't in it to avoid having to prosecute.


iguanaman said:
Trump taking 11 sets of secret documents with him when he left the Whitehouse was wrong from the start and far more egregious than anything Hillary was even accused of.
Click to expand...

That is also incorrect, based on what we currently know. Hillary unlawfully took and unlawfully retained classified documents - Trump appears to have lawfully taken and unlawfully retained government documents.
 
Emails are not documents and the fact that classified info might have been mentioned does not make the same as complete TS/SCI files. There was no evidence that her server was not secure either. It was disgraceful fishing expedition against Hillary to discredit her when seeking elected office and purely political in nature. Again you know this.
 
iguanaman said:
Emails are not documents
Click to expand...

Emails are absolutely documents.

Federal Records Are:

any recorded information…​

  • Regardless of form or characteristics;
  • Made or received by a federal agency under federal law;
  • Made or received by a federal agency in connection with the transaction of public business;
  • Preserved or appropriate for preservation by a federal agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the activities of the U.S. government or because of the informational value.

iguanaman said:
and the fact that classified info might have been mentioned does not make the same as complete TS/SCI files
Click to expand...

TS//SCI information in a document makes that document TS//SCI.

Back in 2016, I spent a lot of time breaking down all the rules for you with great specificity and examples.


iguanaman said:
It was disgraceful fishing expedition against Hillary to discredit her when seeking elected office and purely political in nature. Again you know this.
Click to expand...

I know that she broke the law, and got away with it.
 
I know. Emails that mentioned drone strikes in them are "TS/SAP documents". That fact that they do not disclose secret information changes nothing. You damn well know what I mean when I say there is a world of difference when you steal a complete TS/SCI file out of a SCIF and not just get an email with a few words that are deemed TS. Hillary was not at all careless with really significant sensitive info. There were no leaks during her tenure. Trump leaked TS info all the time while President and just because he could does not make any less careless. Trump treated his access to TS content like a perk that he could use as an ego boost by "leaking" things that would put any other person in jail. But someone with as much knowledge in this area as you would already know all this and who these 2 happy people are with Trump in the oval office?


I always wondered what was so funny?
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
I know. Emails that mentioned drone strikes in them are "TS/SAP documents".
Click to expand...

If those drone strikes are part of a SAP, then they absolutely can be.

iguanaman said:
That fact that they do not disclose secret information changes nothing.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what they did or didn't disclose. HCS-O was in those email chains as well; I noted you studiously didn't address that before.


iguanaman said:
You damn well know what I mean when I say there is a world of difference when you steal a complete TS/SCI file out of a SCIF and not just a email with a few words that are deemed TS.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. I also know you are wrong, not least because nothing was stolen.
 
You missed the rest of my post sorry....

Hillary was not at all careless with really significant sensitive info. There were no leaks during her tenure. Trump leaked TS info all the time while President and just because he could does not make it any less careless. Trump treated his access to TS content like a perk that he could use as an ego boost by "leaking" things that would put any other person in jail. But someone with as much knowledge in this area as you would already know all this and who these 2 happy people are with Trump in the oval office?


I always wondered what was so funny?
 
cpwill said:
Sure, but, the fact that we've had a civil war and massive suppression of domestic opposition before isn't, I think, a good argument for risking it again. :-/
Click to expand...
What suppression of domestic opposition are you referring to? The opposition over the right to own people as property or the right to say that everyone but non-white christian males heterosexual are to be second class citizens and deprived of their equal rights?
 
Last edited:
Again just because he could does not make it any less careless. Just like even if he declassified them they still would contain info that would damage our national security and could cost lives by being revealed. You need to start thinking clearly.
 
iguanaman said:
You missed the rest of my post sorry....

Hillary was not at all careless with really significant sensitive info
Click to expand...

That is incorrect, as Comey laid out. Hilary was grossly negligent (he called it "extremely careless") with some of our nation's most sensitive information.


iguanaman said:
Trump treated his access to TS content like a perk that he could use as an ego boost by "leaking" things that would put any other person in jail.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me in the last, however, we have established the precedent that at least one other person wouldn't face consequences.
 
iguanaman said:
Again just because he could does not make it any less careless. Just like even if he declassified them they still would contain info that would damage our national security and could cost lives by being revealed. You need to start thinking clearly.
Click to expand...
I've not claimed otherwise. You should start reading carefully
 
Da heq?
 
How many times do you just sit there and think? My bet is zero.
 

You don’t see a problem with an ex-president just deciding to walk off with nuclear codes and sensitive information on our intelligence assets around the world and keeping it in his attic?

US intelligence is still reeling with the implications of how Trump was able to walk off with this stuff, how it was transported, and who may have seen it while it was sitting in his attic.

FBI search of Mar-a-Lago raises critical national security questions: Sources

Sources tell ABC News the amount and sensitivity of confidential, secret and top-secret documents allegedly discovered at Mar-a-Lago raise critical security questions.
abcnews.go.com
 
redbeer said:
Have no desire to join the party of gossipers.
Click to expand...
Trump relies on what what aboutisms and playing the victim, yea like a gossip queen. How
 
When Trump said he could shoot someone and people would still follow him, he may have actually been right. Scary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.