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

[roguenuke]

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).

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.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

How many times do you have to be fooled with "false narratives", before you wake up to their tactics? Do you enjoy wallowing around in the crap they consistently push? This too, as with all the others will be proven to be a lie, plain and simple. They got your hopes up......you think, "finally we got him", only to be let down, once again......yet, you keep falling for their lame bullsnort. It's sad to watch, in all reality.....they have fed you with hatred and don't even realize it, just pounce upon the bandwagon. Lala land is a ruse.

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.

 

[redbeer]

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.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

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.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

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.

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.

 

[redbeer]

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.

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.

 

[munkle]

Does that include having classified documents on your home server like Hillary?

 

[cpwill]

Hillary had emails that mentioned drone strikes that are still SAP information even though they are regularly published in the NYT. Trump had TS/SCI documents that are never supposed to leave "safe rooms" about our latest nuclear programs that he apparently already gave or sold to Russia. Give us a break.

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.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

Moscow Already 'Studying' Top-Secret Records From Trump Raid: Russian Media​

https://www.newsweek.com/moscow-already-studying-top-secret-records-trump-raid-russian-media-1733440

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)

 

[iguanaman]

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.

 

[cpwill]

Yet amazingly Hillary's server was far more secure than the govts one

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

Hillary had ever right to have those emails as SOS

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.

and the FBI found no evidence of wrongdoing.

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.

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.

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.

 

[iguanaman]

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




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.




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.




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.

 

[cpwill]

Emails are not documents

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.

and the fact that classified info might have been mentioned does not make the same as complete TS/SCI files

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.

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

I know that she broke the law, and got away with it.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

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.




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?

 

[cpwill]

I know. Emails that mentioned drone strikes in them are "TS/SAP documents".

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

That fact that they do not disclose secret information changes nothing.

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.

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.

I know what you mean. I also know you are wrong, not least because nothing was stolen.

 

[iguanaman]

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



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.




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?

 

[Lisa]

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. :-/

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?

 

[iguanaman]

He didn't steal them because he had the authority to take them, and store them as he pleased.

Hilary had the same authority with regards to the State Department information she was funneling through her unclass private email system, but not with regards to the CIA, NGA, and other information.

So, while both unlawfully retained documents, Hillary actually can be considered to have "stolen" some of them when she originally took them, while Trump (assuming the original transfer happened while he was still President) can not. :-/

Absent any new major information coming out (for example, actual evidence of an attempt to sell nuclear secrets to the Saudis), that is what makes what we currently know a lesser offense. :-/

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.

 

[cpwill]

You missed the rest of my post sorry....

Hillary was not at all careless with really significant sensitive info

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.

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.

It wouldn't surprise me in the last, however, we have established the precedent that at least one other person wouldn't face consequences.

 

[cpwill]

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.

I've not claimed otherwise. You should start reading carefully

 

[cpwill]

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?

Da heq?

 

[US&THEM]

Lol.....Trump did not take top secret nuclear documents.....they are lying to you. Trump was not committing espionage by selling off our top secrets.....they are lying to you. I know it's a total waste of time in assisting you, for you are already sold into the bullsnort, full hilt, to the extreme, lol.

It's simply more of the same...."anonymous reports", they use to get the left worked up to a frenzy. They've done this quite literally hundreds of times the last six years, yet they still fall for it, every time....incredible!

How many times do you just sit there and think? My bet is zero.

 

[redbeer]

How many times do you just sit there and think? My bet is zero.

Have no desire to join the party of gossipers.

 

[ataraxia]

He didn't steal them because he had the authority to take them, and store them as he pleased.

Hilary had the same authority with regards to the State Department information she was funneling through her unclass private email system, but not with regards to the CIA, NGA, and other information.

So, while both unlawfully retained documents, Hillary actually can be considered to have "stolen" some of them when she originally took them, while Trump (assuming the original transfer happened while he was still President) can not. :-/

Absent any new major information coming out (for example, actual evidence of an attempt to sell nuclear secrets to the Saudis), that is what makes what we currently know a lesser offense. :-/

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

 

[US&THEM]

Have no desire to join the party of gossipers.

Trump relies on what what aboutisms and playing the victim, yea like a gossip queen. How

 

[donhughesmusic]

We don't know yet how the upper level GOP representatives like Ted Cruz or Rick Scott (who both made outlandish statements) will react. But it's a safe bet that most of the MAGA crowd, the Republican base, will believe this is a frame up, planted evidence, unjustified raid, etc. Trump could have an actual nuclear bomb and they wouldn't care. They would want him to detonate it in California or New York. There is little hope for those folks.

When Trump said he could shoot someone and people would still follow him, he may have actually been right. Scary.