FBI raiding treasonists home

[Turkeytop]

I’m gonna call bullshit. Endless investigations by a Republican congress with every desire to nail her turned up NOTHING that anyone could do anything with. Just a lot of theatre. Give it up already. Even we Democrats don’t care for or about that woman anymore. It’s like we are airing season 7 and you’re a fanboy stuck on season 2’s character death. Are you gonna be 90 years old, she’ll be dead and you’ll still be demanding Justice?

This stuff is so serious and so dangerous to your country, I don't know how anyone can joke about it or try to minimize it.

[bmw]

I’m gonna call bullshit. Endless investigations by a Democrat congress with every desire to nail Trump turned up NOTHING that anyone could do anything with. Just a lot of theatre. Give it up already...Are you gonna be 90 years old, he’ll be dead and you’ll still be demanding Justice?

FIFY.

[Rate This]

I’m gonna call bullshit. Endless investigations by a Democrat congress with every desire to nail Trump turned up NOTHING that anyone could do anything with. Just a lot of theatre. Give it up already...Are you gonna be 90 years old, he’ll be dead and you’ll still be demanding Justice?

FIFY.

Try this:
https://www.thebulwark.com/but-her-emai ... taboutism/

Or this:

T.M. in Downers Grove, IL, asks: Could you explain the difference between the investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mails and Donald Trump's classified documents? Does the right have any ground to stand on when they say there is a double standard between the FBI's treatment of Clinton vs the treatment of Trump?

There is no double standard that we can see.

To start with, once the problem with the e-mails came to light, Clinton voluntarily surrendered all work product (a little over 30,000 e-mails). She withheld another 30,000 that were deemed personal. No investigator has claimed that the personal e-mails were misclassified or misrepresented, so barring any new information, Clinton shared everything she was required to share. By contrast, Trump apparently went through two rounds of "here's everything you asked for" and yet still retained official materials, and it was at that point that his home was searched.

Beyond that, only 110 of Clinton's 30,000+ e-mails were found to contain classified information, and only eight of those had Top Secret information. Seven of the Top Secret messages were about drone strikes that had been reported in the press. The eighth was about a telephone conversation with the president of Malawi (phone calls with foreign leaders are automatically given Top Secret classification). The 102 e-mails that had lower levels of classification were equally benign, and none of it would be of any value to a foreign spy or other enemy. As to Trump, we don't know the exact contents of the materials seized from Mar-a-Lago but the evidence suggests there was a bunch of serious stuff, including material that would be of interest to a spy.

There is also the question of intent. Clinton was, by all evidence, following the same approach to e-mail that her immediate predecessors (Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell) had. She had no intention of mishandling classified information, and basically just made an unwitting mistake. Under the law, inadvertent mishandling of classified information is not a crime—otherwise, any government employee who accidentally left their phone at a restaurant would be at risk of being charged with a felony. In contrast to Clinton, it appears that Trump knowingly retained classified information he shouldn't have had, and attempted to hide that from government officials.

Perhaps most importantly, Clinton was investigated six ways to Sunday. One can hardly claim a double standard if Trump is also investigated thoroughly

[bmw]

From that article:

Whatever you may think about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct government business, there was never a hint that she withheld or refused to turn over her servers when they were requested by the government. To the contrary, the issue with Clinton was whether classified information had been “improperly stored or transmitted” on Clinton’s personal system, not whether she had withheld anything from the investigators

That's not exactly true. Directly from Comey's statement:

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014...With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found.

And that is only the stuff they were able to find through various methods. There may have been more, but we'll never know, since, you know, she deleted them. Regardless, there were at least 3 classified documents she deleted.

And to be clear, I'm not letting Trump off the hook, yet. I want to see what evidence there is to prove that he intentionally withheld classified documents from the government and misled them about their existence/location. And for that matter, I want his claim that he declassified everything he took before he left. Because if he did, then the severity of his alleged crimes takes a major hit.

[Rate This]

From that article:

Whatever you may think about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct government business, there was never a hint that she withheld or refused to turn over her servers when they were requested by the government. To the contrary, the issue with Clinton was whether classified information had been “improperly stored or transmitted” on Clinton’s personal system, not whether she had withheld anything from the investigators

That's not exactly true. Directly from Comey's statement:

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014...With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found.

And that is only the stuff they were able to find through various methods. There may have been more, but we'll never know, since, you know, she deleted them. Regardless, there were at least 3 classified documents she deleted.

And to be clear, I'm not letting Trump off the hook, yet. I want to see what evidence there is to prove that he intentionally withheld classified documents from the government and misled them about their existence/location. And for that matter, I want his claim that he declassified everything he took before he left. Because if he did, then the severity of his alleged crimes takes a major hit.

There’s a process for him declassifying that’s stuff… he doesn’t wave his hand and it’s done. There is an entire governmental procedure for the declassification of documents. They twice asked him to turn over documents which he did and both times he said “that’s all I have!”… it looks pretty open and shut. They went after him when they figured out he STILL had stuff and it was clear he was never going to give it all up. You could argue “he just didn’t know what was there”! But that makes him look entirely incompetent and inept along with everybody else around him who might be in charge of said documents and their storage therein. In other words him not knowing there were yet more documents is just not plausible coming from a man with no credibility, who lies constantly to manipulate the situation and his supporters and knows full well that the reality is he’s up shits creek without a paddle.

Remember that absent that declassification he cannot have top secret documents once he is no longer president. He loses his security clearance at noon on January 20 of the year he leaves office. He sure as hell doesn’t have the right to hang onto the highest of highly classified information and walk out the door with it. The guy lies so often that one has to assume he’s lying until proven otherwise. He’s employs the modern equivalent of P.T. Barnum’s adage “There’s a sucker born every minute”. But instead of peddling circus acts and animals he leads his supporters around by the nose like they do with oxen.

[bmw]

The declassification issue isn't as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/1 ... t-00052054

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

I’m gonna call bullshit. Endless investigations by a Democrat congress with every desire to nail Trump turned up NOTHING that anyone could do anything with. Just a lot of theatre. Give it up already...Are you gonna be 90 years old, he’ll be dead and you’ll still be demanding Justice?

FIFY.

As I like to say, "Freedumb isn't free". There is a cost to society, mainly in the way of our institutions being open to fascist rule.

[TC Talks]

How do you know what WAS on Hillary's servers and computers? She had most of them "wiped.". Remember her playing dumb asking "What? With a cloth?"

That's not who we're taking about today Bitter Bryce.

Obstruction is a problem. Today Trump learned Executive Privilege only works when you didn't lose your reelection.

[TC Talks]

As with everything that sourrounds this idiot, his legal defense is a mess...

On May 25, one of former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers sent a letter to a top Justice Department official, laying out the argument that his client had done nothing illegal by holding onto a trove of government materials when he left the White House.

The letter, from M. Evan Corcoran, a former federal prosecutor, represented Mr. Trump’s initial defense against the investigation into the presence of highly classified documents in unsecured locations at his members-only club and residence, Mar-a-Lago. It amounted to a three-page hodgepodge of contested legal theories, including Mr. Corcoran’s assertion that Mr. Trump possessed a nearly boundless right as president to declassify materials and an argument that one law governing the handling of classified documents does not apply to a president.

Mr. Corcoran asked the Justice Department to present the letter as “exculpatory” information to the grand jury investigating the case.

Government lawyers found it deeply puzzling. They included it in the affidavit submitted to a federal magistrate in Florida in their request for the search warrant they later used to recover even more classified materials at Mar-a-Lago — to demonstrate their willingness to acknowledge Mr. Corcoran’s arguments, a person with knowledge of the decision said.

As the partial release of the search warrant affidavit on Friday, including the May 25 letter, illustrated, Mr. Trump is going into the battle over the documents with a hastily assembled team. The lawyers have offered up a variety of arguments on his behalf that have yet to do much to fend off a Justice Department that has adopted a determined, focused and so far largely successful legal approach.

“He needs a quarterback who’s a real lawyer,” said David I. Schoen, a lawyer who defended Mr. Trump in his second Senate impeachment trial. Mr. Schoen called it “an honor” to represent Mr. Trump, but said it was problematic to keep lawyers “rotating in and out.”

Often tinged with Mr. Trump’s own bombast and sometimes conflating his powers as president with his role as a private citizen, the legal arguments put forth by his team sometimes strike lawyers not involved in the case as more about setting a political narrative than about dealing with the possibility of a federal prosecution.

“There seems to be a H*** disconnect between what’s actually happening — a real live court case surrounding a real live investigation — and what they’re actually doing, which is treating it like they’ve treated everything else, recklessly and thoughtlessly,” Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney and F.B.I. official, said of Mr. Trump’s approach. “And for an average defendant on an average case, that would be a disaster.”

[Bryce]

How do you know what WAS on Hillary's servers and computers? She had most of them "wiped.". Remember her playing dumb asking "What? With a cloth?"

That's not who we're taking about today Bitter Bryce.

Obstruction is a problem. Today Trump learned Executive Privilege only works when you didn't lose your reelection.

Guess I'm not part of the we.

United States v Johnson

If it is shown that government officers were motivated by intentional or purposeful discrimination in their enforcement of a statute or regulation resulting in unequal application to those entitled to equal treatment, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause will be found.[6] The showing of discrimination is not limited to factors such as race or religion, but also may include other improper motives that can be characterized as vindictive or abusive prosecution.[7]

[TC Talks]

How do you know what WAS on Hillary's servers and computers? She had most of them "wiped.". Remember her playing dumb asking "What? With a cloth?"

That's not who we're taking about today Bitter Bryce.

Obstruction is a problem. Today Trump learned Executive Privilege only works when you didn't lose your reelection.

Guess I'm not part of the we.

United States v Johnson

If it is shown that government officers were motivated by intentional or purposeful discrimination in their enforcement of a statute or regulation resulting in unequal application to those entitled to equal treatment, a violation of the Equal Protection Clause will be found.[6] The showing of discrimination is not limited to factors such as race or religion, but also may include other improper motives that can be characterized as vindictive or abusive prosecution.[7]

Obstruction has nothing to do with irregular enforcement of the law. You lie to the Justice department, you get prosecuted.

[bmw]

If they do prosecute, they should offer him a plea deal (which he would undoubtedly reject, but that is beside the point) whereby for a guilty plea, he pays a small fine. Sandy Berger lied to law enforcement, stole classified documents, and cut them up with scissors. He got a $10k fine.

[Turkeytop]

If he pleads guilty and pays a $1 fine, would he, as a convicted felon, be elligible to run for President again?

[Rate This]

If he pleads guilty and pays a $1 fine, would he, as a convicted felon, be elligible to run for President again?

Yes, there is no provision against that.

[Rate This]

If they do prosecute, they should offer him a plea deal (which he would undoubtedly reject, but that is beside the point) whereby for a guilty plea, he pays a small fine. Sandy Berger lied to law enforcement, stole classified documents, and cut them up with scissors. He got a $10k fine.

By sheer volume and recent history in prosecuting these things they could offer him a plea deal which he rejects. But remember Reality Winner? She stole a single document and leaked it and got 5 years. He has HUNDREDS of documents. Given him a small fine would signal to others that it’s ok to do this with little consequence. That’s not appropriate here.