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

[bigrebnc1775]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That’s it?

1 is to many

 

[Marener]

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]

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."

Trump vs. Clinton: How similar are the two investigations?

Both investigations are linked to the potential mishandling of confidential information but legal experts say there are important differences.

www.newsnationnow.com

 

[Marener]

“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."

Trump vs. Clinton: How similar are the two investigations?

Both investigations are linked to the potential mishandling of confidential information but legal experts say there are important differences.

www.newsnationnow.com

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

“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."

Trump vs. Clinton: How similar are the two investigations?

Both investigations are linked to the potential mishandling of confidential information but legal experts say there are important differences.

www.newsnationnow.com

Here is what Comey said

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI

Director Comey's statement to the press on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

www.fbi.gov

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

 

[Marener]

You've been quoting something from the news national now

I’ve been quoting Comey. You can’t even keep your own claims straight.

 

[MagicMike]

Here is what Comey said

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI

Director Comey's statement to the press on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

www.fbi.gov

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Marener]

1 is to many

Prosecuting one email would be asinine and unprecedented.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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]

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.