Unsealed Trump Search Warrant - Trump had classified Documents

[Batcat]

I suggest you read what Turley says in his op-ed. You will note that he doesn't really make a case for..criminal prosecution. He focuses on department policy NOT federal law.

In order FOR Hillary to be prosecuted the government would have to show that the only reasonable explanation for her to use her private server is for her to share, or collect classified info. It can not be for instance convience. That is what beyond reasonable doubt means. It doesn't matter what you personally believe.

As for personally realising what she'd did. Sure. That's why you will find me on this board supporting Comey's decisions to reopen the investigation and doing so publicly, a few days before the General election in 2015. An act that more than likely cost her the presidency.

If you are careless with national security you will get no sympathy for any consequences that might insue from that action.

That is not at issue here though. The issue is if Hillary was let of the hook criminally because of party affiliation. And to that I say that facts and precedent give no indication of that.

As a side note I will further note that my opinion on national security is applicable to all CURRENT security breaches by officials and former officials. So nobody gets a free pass. Something I suspect is something you don't agree with.

The real reason Hillary was not prosecuted as if she had been Obama would have been implicated. He used her email address.

Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal

The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents on Clinton’s email investigation.

www.politico.com

Obama, our first black President, must never be charged with any crimes. Hillary might have used the fact that Obama was emailing her in her defense. He may well have emailed her classified information.

We must view Obama as a great President. Perhaps the greatest President of all time. It would be racist the consider him any other ways.

If it wasn’t for the scandal of Biden mishandling classified information numerous times we might see Trump prosecuted.

It is going to be harder to prosecute anybody for mishandling classified information in the future. Americans are not all that fond of hypocrisy.

 

[Faun]

sorry 9.2

So a rule, not a law.

 

[forkup]

The real reason Hillary was not prosecuted as if she had been Obama would have been implicated. He used her email address.

Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal

The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents on Clinton’s email investigation.

www.politico.com

Obama, our first black President, must never be charged with any crimes. Hillary might have used the fact that Obama was emailing her in her defense. He may well have emailed her classified information.

We must view Obama as a great President. Perhaps the greatest President of all time. It would be racist the consider him any other ways.

If it wasn’t for the scandal of Biden mishandling classified information numerous times we might see Trump prosecuted.

It is going to be harder to prosecute anybody for mishandling classified information in the future. Americans are not all that fond of hypocrisy.

Conspiracy theories don't lend themselves well for criminal prosecutions no matter how much you believe them.

I gave you the precedent for typical prosecutions for security breaches. I allowed you to challenge that by giving you exactly what I require in order to convince me otherwise.

I can further say that nothing would have prevented prosecution if the facts warrant it in the 4 years the DOJ was in the hands of Trump appointees. Despite it being a regular chant in any Trump rally.

That it didn't happen is telling all in itself.

As for Trump and Biden. Their breaches aren't the same from what we currently know. And I suspect that they will have different outcomes. For the same reasons I gave. One has clear elements of intent. Multiple ones even. The other doesn't.

 

[struth]

So a rule, not a law.

rules are laws that govern the handling of classified material in the US Senate. Xiden violating that rule as a senator goes to his intent to violate federal law

 

[Batcat]

Conspiracy theories don't lend themselves well for criminal prosecutions no matter how much you believe them.

I gave you the precedent for typical prosecutions for security breaches. I allowed you to challenge that by giving you exactly what I require in order to convince me otherwise.

I can further say that nothing would have prevented prosecution if the facts warrant it in the 4 years the DOJ was in the hands of Trump appointees. Despite it being a regular chant in any Trump rally.

That it didn't happen is telling all in itself.

As for Trump and Biden. Their breaches aren't the same from what we currently know. And I suspect that they will have different outcomes. For the same reasons I gave. One has clear elements of intent. Multiple ones even. The other doesn't.

Do you think Trump will be prosecuted for his handling of classified information and Biden will not?

If the corrupt Swamp has its way that could happen. I personally doubt either will face a court.

As far as your contention that Hillary’s email did not justify prosecution I will Provide a link below to an interesting report.

It’s a lengthy pdf report from Regent University Law Review. You can download the report from the link. It discusses the case and mentions numerous other cases and decision I had never heard of. I will include one short excerpt from the report.

Intent or Gross Negligence: Hillary Clinton Should Be Charged Under 18 U.S.C. § 793 for Mishandling Classified Information

The Department of Justice failed to pursue justice when it decided not to file charges against Hillary Clinton regarding her private e-mail server. Congress cre

papers.ssrn.com

From the PDF report

Anyone without the same security clearance as Hillary Clinton was “not entitled to receive” such classified information. James Comey did not reveal who Clinton sent the classified information to in his press release, but Congress has mentioned that Clinton sent classified information to her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.146 Chelsea Clinton does not have the proper security clearance to see such information. Secretary Clinton can be charged under § 793(d) for sending classified information to a person who is not entitled to receive it, regardless of whether that person used the information to harm the United States or intended to harm the United States. If Clinton merely had classified information on an unprotected server but was sending the information to the proper personnel, then this is not a prohibited willful act. However, based solely on the facts provided by James Comey’s official statement and Congress’s investigation, Hillary Clinton’s conduct would satisfy this element of the statute because she sent classified information to her daughter, who was not authorized to receive it.

 

[Faun]

rules are laws that govern the handling of classified material in the US Senate. Xiden violating that rule as a senator goes to his intent to violate federal law

Rules are not laws.

 

[struth]

Rules are not laws.

rules are certainly a type of law. the rules to football are the law of the game, just like the rules governing the senate are the laws of rhe senate.

Moveover, xiden’s removal of them as a senator and retention of them would also violate federal code

 

[Faun]

rules are certainly a type of law. the rules to football are the law of the game, just like the rules governing the senate are the laws of rhe senate.

Moveover, xiden’s removal of them as a senator and retention of them would also violate federal code

Rules are not laws. Show someone whoever went to prison for breaking a rule and not a law...

And try posting a law that says it's a violation for a Senator to take classified documents...

 

[struth]

Rules are not laws. Show someone whoever went to prison for breaking a rule and not a law...

And try posting a law that says it's a violation for a Senator to take classified documents...

hahah there are all sorts of laws people can break without going to prison....only laws that violate the criminal code carry that sort of possible punishment.

Geez dumb

 

[Faun]

hahah there are all sorts of laws people can break without going to prison....only laws that violate the criminal code carry that sort of possible punishment.

Geez dumb

Not what I asked you, lying troll. I didn't ask show someone who didn't go to jail after breaking a law.

I asked you to show someone who DID go to jail after NOT breaking a law, but for breaking a rule.

Seems you can't show that since rules are not laws.

Also, there was no need for you to sign your post.

 

[struth]

Not what I asked you, lying troll. I didn't ask show someone who didn't go to jail after breaking a law.

I asked you to show someone who DID go to jail after NOT breaking a law, but for breaking a rule.

Seems you can't show that since rules are not laws.

Also, there was no need for you to sign your post.

because this law isn't part of the criminal code, they would never go to jail for it. What part of that don't you understand? Only laws that violated the criminal code involve jail time.

Xiden as Senator not only violated Senate Rule 9.2, but also violated the criminal code, when he took and retained the classified material.

 

[forkup]

Do you think Trump will be prosecuted for his handling of classified information and Biden will not?

If the corrupt Swamp has its way that could happen. I personally doubt either will face a court.

As far as your contention that Hillary’s email did not justify prosecution I will Provide a link below to an interesting report.

It’s a lengthy pdf report from Regent University Law Review. You can download the report from the link. It discusses the case and mentions numerous other cases and decision I had never heard of. I will include one short excerpt from the report.

Intent or Gross Negligence: Hillary Clinton Should Be Charged Under 18 U.S.C. § 793 for Mishandling Classified Information

The Department of Justice failed to pursue justice when it decided not to file charges against Hillary Clinton regarding her private e-mail server. Congress cre

papers.ssrn.com

From the PDF report

Anyone without the same security clearance as Hillary Clinton was “not entitled to receive” such classified information. James Comey did not reveal who Clinton sent the classified information to in his press release, but Congress has mentioned that Clinton sent classified information to her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.146 Chelsea Clinton does not have the proper security clearance to see such information. Secretary Clinton can be charged under § 793(d) for sending classified information to a person who is not entitled to receive it, regardless of whether that person used the information to harm the United States or intended to harm the United States. If Clinton merely had classified information on an unprotected server but was sending the information to the proper personnel, then this is not a prohibited willful act. However, based solely on the facts provided by James Comey’s official statement and Congress’s investigation, Hillary Clinton’s conduct would satisfy this element of the statute because she sent classified information to her daughter, who was not authorized to receive it.

I first want to mention a few things. I do not mind people linking things like you did in the post. In fact, I welcome and applaud it. In my view it shows a certain amount of respect if you are willing to go through the time to find a source that actually goes beyond some inane article in the media. Having said that I find it ironic that a few posts ago you said to Faun that you couldn't be bothered to look up a single law to back up your claim, something that in my experience isn't all that time consuming but expect me to go through a pretty dense paper. Mind you I don't really mind doing it, but it seems a bit hypocritical.

Second, since I think you actually are interested in an honest debate I want you to know something about me. I've found that this site doesn't hold my interest all the time. At times I don't want to spend the time it takes to respond like I want to respond, so I disappear. Sometimes for days sometimes for weeks. This in no way means I don't want to talk or am avoiding the conversation. If this happens and you want me to respond to your last post, simply PM me and I will get back to you the moment I return.

Do you think Trump will be prosecuted for his handling of classified information and Biden will not?

Yes I think he will. Simply because Trump clearly did break the law. If you want me to specific as to how I figure it, I will but I think it will derail the Hillary thing to much. so let me know.

Now as for Hillary. First of Regent University is a Christian College founded by Pat Robertson, Something that at the very least shows a certain bias. Not that that makes them necessarily wrong, but it does signify a certain partisan slant.

What strikes me at once when reading it is that it makes a lot of references to case law when it comes to trying to show the intention of the espionage act but is incredibly mute when it comes to actually stating in what circumstances it actually is applied. Sure its buried in the footnotes but you actually have to look those up in order to get the context. For instance it mentions United States v Morison. Citing it as a first amendment issue, which was part of the defense, but then when you look up what this case was about it shows the Morison actually leaked classified information to the press. Making showing intent insanely easy. United States v. Morison (4th Cir.). Yet it tries to use as a precedent in order to show that Hillary sending her daughter "classified docs" as something that is prosecutable. The thing is though that... and again going by the link in the footnotes of the paper. Not only doesn't show any sign of a congressional investigation but provides the context that the email Chelsea got from her mother, was send on the unclassified government networks and were only deemed to have certain elements deemed confidential (the lowest classification level) after they were actually sent. Clinton Forwarded Daughter Email Chain Most Likely About Climate Talks (Published 2016)

Let me ask you. Do you think it's possible to convince 12 people in a jury to unanimously decide that Hillary Clinton intended to send her daughter classified information that wasn't even deemed classified by the US government when she send it beyond a reasonable doubt? Because that is what your paper contends.

 

[Faun]

because this law isn't part of the criminal code, they would never go to jail for it. What part of that don't you understand? Only laws that violated the criminal code involve jail time.

Xiden as Senator not only violated Senate Rule 9.2, but also violated the criminal code, when he took and retained the classified material.

LOLOLOL

Again, for the hard-of-learning....

This isn’t a law. It's a rule and rules are not law.

As far as the actual federal law, he only violated it if he knowingly took those documents with the intent to keep them. Unfortunately for you, you still have no proof that happened.

Also unfortunately for you, even if he did, the statute of limitations expired a year ago.

Even worse still for you, even had the statute of limitations not expired, that law doesn't apply to Senators.

You lose at every turn on this. Sucks to be you.

 

[struth]

LOLOLOL

Again, for the hard-of-learning....

This isn’t a law. It's a rule and rules are not law.

As far as the actual federal law, he only violated it if he knowingly took those documents with the intent to keep them. Unfortunately for you, you still have no proof that happened.

Also unfortunately for you, even if he did, the statute of limitations expired a year ago.

Rules are certainly laws.

There is tons of proof....the fact he put at least one classified document in his own folder and labeled in "personal" and hid it in his private office...shows intent

 

[Faun]

Rules are certainly laws.

You're demented to think rules are laws.

On top of pointing out people don't go to prison for breaking rules -- laws only become laws when Legislature passes them and then the president (federal) or governor (state) signs them into laws. As far as U.S. Senate rules, the U.S. House never votes on them and the president never signs them into law. So no, a rule cannot be, nor is, a law.

 

[Batcat]

I first want to mention a few things. I do not mind people linking things like you did in the post. In fact, I welcome and applaud it. In my view it shows a certain amount of respect if you are willing to go through the time to find a source that actually goes beyond some inane article in the media. Having said that I find it ironic that a few posts ago you said to Faun that you couldn't be bothered to look up a single law to back up your claim, something that in my experience isn't all that time consuming but expect me to go through a pretty dense paper. Mind you I don't really mind doing it, but it seems a bit hypocritical.

Second, since I think you actually are interested in an honest debate I want you to know something about me. I've found that this site doesn't hold my interest all the time. At times I don't want to spend the time it takes to respond like I want to respond, so I disappear. Sometimes for days sometimes for weeks. This in no way means I don't want to talk or am avoiding the conversation. If this happens and you want me to respond to your last post, simply PM me and I will get back to you the moment I return.


Yes I think he will. Simply because Trump clearly did break the law. If you want me to specific as to how I figure it, I will but I think it will derail the Hillary thing to much. so let me know.

Now as for Hillary. First of Regent University is a Christian College founded by Pat Robertson, Something that at the very least shows a certain bias. Not that that makes them necessarily wrong, but it does signify a certain partisan slant.

What strikes me at once when reading it is that it makes a lot of references to case law when it comes to trying to show the intention of the espionage act but is incredibly mute when it comes to actually stating in what circumstances it actually is applied. Sure its buried in the footnotes but you actually have to look those up in order to get the context. For instance it mentions United States v Morison. Citing it as a first amendment issue, which was part of the defense, but then when you look up what this case was about it shows the Morison actually leaked classified information to the press. Making showing intent insanely easy. United States v. Morison (4th Cir.). Yet it tries to use as a precedent in order to show that Hillary sending her daughter "classified docs" as something that is prosecutable. The thing is though that... and again going by the link in the footnotes of the paper. Not only doesn't show any sign of a congressional investigation but provides the context that the email Chelsea got from her mother, was send on the unclassified government networks and were only deemed to have certain elements deemed confidential (the lowest classification level) after they were actually sent. Clinton Forwarded Daughter Email Chain Most Likely About Climate Talks (Published 2016)

Let me ask you. Do you think it's possible to convince 12 people in a jury to unanimously decide that Hillary Clinton intended to send her daughter classified information that wasn't even deemed classified by the US government when she send it beyond a reasonable doubt? Because that is what your paper contends.

I actually ran across the report while researching for another post. I wasn’t wanting my time doing research on the orders of another poster.

Do I think Hillary would be convicted? No. However if Hillary had been prosecuted we would have less problems with high level politicians pushing the limits.

My point is that the rule of law should apply equally to all. That means not just Trump but Hillary, Biden and Hunter. If youI are not going to enforce the law at the highest levels than why have it? People will get away with doing anything they think they can get away with.

Peons who have security clearances are very careful while handling classified information which is one reason why there are few prosecutions. I was one of those peons and I knew for a fact that I would have been prosecuted if I did stupid things like Hillary and Biden have done while handling classified info.

Of course there is an argument that too many things are classified in our nation. In other words something that might prove embarrassing to the administration in power is classified Top Secret although it would not do extremely grave damage to the nation if exposed. It may just do grave damage to a Party.

 

[Faun]

There is tons of proof....the fact he put at least one classified document in his own folder and labeled in "personal" and hid it in his private office...shows intent

Huh? I'm still waiting for you to prove he did that.

Start by proving the folder was marked "personal."

Then prove it was Biden who marked it it, "personal."

Then prove it was marked "personal" before classified documents were put in it.

You've proven none of that.

 

[struth]

You're demented to think rules are laws.

On top of pointing out people don't go to prison for breaking rules -- laws only become laws when Legislature passes them and then the president (federal) or governor (state) signs them into laws. As far as U.S. Senate rules, the U.S. House never votes on them and the president never signs them into law. So no, a rule cannot be, nor is, a law.

people don’t go to prison if they violate most laws. The criminal code is only one chapter out of many in federal and state codes.

you silly dembots seem to think only the criminal code is law

the US Constitution is the supreme law, and it’s delegated congress the ability to govern itself with its own laws like this rule. A violation of it as a Senator, is clear per se violation of the criminal code

 

[dblack]

people don’t go to prison if they violate most laws.

Prison, or death, is the threat backing up every. single. law. That's what makes them different from "suggestions".

 

[struth]

Huh? I'm still waiting for you to prove he did that.

Start by proving the folder was marked "personal."

Then prove it was Biden who marked it it, "personal."

Then prove it was marked "personal" before classified documents were put in it.

You've proven none of that.

holy shit i have repeatedly provided the CNN article reporting that it was

it was in his personal office. your wild conspiracy theory that someone. planted all this is silly