What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

DOJ gives new reason for Trump Raid.... It never was about "nuclear paperwork".. Oh Really?

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
87,716
Reaction score
16,255
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
You listed the FBI findings. It’s 4 dozen email chains in total.

None of which were properly marked.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential
 

MagicMike

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2021
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
577
Points
928
Location
New Mexico
Between you me and Dan he is the authority on the subject. Since he worked the presidential detail in the secret service.
So he loves to remind his listeners ad naseum.
Actually all he is is a washed-up ex-L.E.O. who landed a prostitute gig on Fox affiliated talk radio shooting off his mouth everyday--in order to sell shit.
Otherwise he'd be selling shoes in a strip mall somewhere.

I CERTAINLY wouldn't be repeating any of the shit he says.
 

Marener

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
3,433
Reaction score
1,481
Points
163
Dude I have not changed anything I have said.
Those two statements are very different.

Saying the info was classified at the time is very different than saying Clinton knew the email was classified when she sent it.

The first is something that can be determined objectively by the national security staff.

The other requires you to know what Clinton was thinking and there’s simply no evidence to say so.
 

Marener

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
3,433
Reaction score
1,481
Points
163
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential
That’s it?
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
87,716
Reaction score
16,255
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
So he loves to remind his listeners ad naseum.
Actually all he is is a washed-up ex-L.E.O. who landed a prostitute gig on Fox affiliated talk radio shooting off his mouth everyday--in order to sell shit.
Otherwise he'd be selling shoes in a strip mall somewhere.

I CERTAINLY wouldn't be repeating any of the shit he says.
Irrelevant he's the authority on the subject you are nor
 

Marener

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
3,433
Reaction score
1,481
Points
163
1 is to many
If we were dealing with large quantities of classified information or clear intent, it might have a case.

The DoJ has never prosecuted any case of a single non-intentional mistake. It’s just not rational to do so.
 

MagicMike

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2021
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
577
Points
928
Location
New Mexico
Those two statements are very different.

Saying the info was classified at the time is very different than saying Clinton knew the email was classified when she sent it.

The first is something that can be determined objectively by the national security staff.

The other requires you to know what Clinton was thinking and there’s simply no evidence to say so.
“Whereas Hillary Clinton’s email server never contained properly marked classified information in the various emails received from or sent to unclassified government email accounts, the documents in Donald Trump’s possession were properly marked as classified and continued to have those markings at the time of their seizure,” Bradley Moss, a Washington-based national security lawyer, wrote in an email.

In other words, it’s possible Trump, or someone on his team, knowingly withheld confidential records after being asked to return them in a way that Clinton did not."

 

Marener

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
3,433
Reaction score
1,481
Points
163
“Whereas Hillary Clinton’s email server never contained properly marked classified information in the various emails received from or sent to unclassified government email accounts, the documents in Donald Trump’s possession were properly marked as classified and continued to have those markings at the time of their seizure,” Bradley Moss, a Washington-based national security lawyer, wrote in an email.

In other words, it’s possible Trump, or someone on his team, knowingly withheld confidential records after being asked to return them in a way that Clinton did not."

I’ve said this many times. It just doesn’t sink in. They’re fully indoctrinated about Clinton.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
87,716
Reaction score
16,255
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
“Whereas Hillary Clinton’s email server never contained properly marked classified information in the various emails received from or sent to unclassified government email accounts, the documents in Donald Trump’s possession were properly marked as classified and continued to have those markings at the time of their seizure,” Bradley Moss, a Washington-based national security lawyer, wrote in an email.

In other words, it’s possible Trump, or someone on his team, knowingly withheld confidential records after being asked to return them in a way that Clinton did not."

Here is what Comey said
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
87,716
Reaction score
16,255
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
I’ve said this many times. It just doesn’t sink in. They’re fully indoctrinated about Clinton.
You've been quoting something from the news national now
 

MagicMike

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2021
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
577
Points
928
Location
New Mexico
Here is what Comey said
Yep.
And this is the most pertinent part of this statement:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
87,716
Reaction score
16,255
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Yep.
And this is the most pertinent part of this statement:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
And there you have it this part you said Comey had said does not exist
"Whereas Hillary Clinton’s email server never contained properly marked classified information in the various emails received from or sent to unclassified government email accounts,"
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
87,716
Reaction score
16,255
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
I’ve been quoting Comey. You can’t even keep your own claims straight.
Comey never said this in his press release.
"Whereas Hillary Clinton’s email server never contained properly marked classified information in the various emails received from or sent to unclassified government email accounts,"
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
87,716
Reaction score
16,255
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
If we were dealing with large quantities of classified information or clear intent, it might have a case.

The DoJ has never prosecuted any case of a single non-intentional mistake. It’s just not rational to do so.
1 is to many
 

Marener

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
3,433
Reaction score
1,481
Points
163
Comey never said this in his press release.
"Whereas Hillary Clinton’s email server never contained properly marked classified information in the various emails received from or sent to unclassified government email accounts,"
I already quoted Comey’s testimony when he explained in detail that no emails were properly classified.

You should know there’s more to this case than the single press release.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
87,716
Reaction score
16,255
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
I already quoted Comey’s testimony when he explained in detail that no emails were properly classified.

You should know there’s more to this case than the single press release.
It was not in his press conference he did not say that.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
87,716
Reaction score
16,255
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Prosecuting one email would be asinine and unprecedented.
Not when it's top secret. Hell I recall a sailor who went to jail for taking a picture of his sub and sent the picture to his family.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$55.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top