wilkes

Very interesting debate folks. Some good points to ponder.

Albert Pike (view profile)
Posted 4:54 pm, 08/11/2022
Just,
Find where I said Trump should or should not be charged�I'll wait.
------
FFS. You really going to act like you're not using this deflection to try to say he shouldn't be?

Either that or you feel he should be charged...

Have you noticed, every time someone points out a crime committed by Trump, the trumpettes makes up a crime for Hillary.

Just,
Find where I said Trump should or should not be charged�I'll wait.

Your point is interesting but dumb.

Focus on this statement, I know it's hard:

"We do not see those things here."

The previous administration had 4 years to do more investigations and find something to charge her for, they didn't find a thing to charge her with.

I know it sucks, but time to move on from the obsession over emails.

If you think that what Hilary did was a chargeable offense then you have no room to even argue that Trump shouldn't be charged either...

OR IN A GROSSLY NEGLIGENT WAY;

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

Sounds pretty clear to me,.

Who cares what Comey thinks? His action shows he was trying to get Trump elected by releasing information on Hillary but keeping information against Trump secret. He as much as handed the election to Trump.

Just,
You're wrong, you should have read the entire statement by Comey,

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

OR IN A GROSSLY NEGLIGENT WAY.

Just, the Rumplickers always conveniently forget the parts that indicate their claims are false."Intentional" punches a big hole in their dyke.

Wrong.

According to Comey intent isn't necessary,

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.

Thanks for playing.

I'd like your thoughts on this use of private servers as well:

https://www.reuters.com/art...SKBN1WB2NE

You forgot a part:

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a 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."

The whole thing about proving it "intentional" is the key.

Here's a nuggets,

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.

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

But even if information is not marked "classified" in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.

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.

Note the last paste, Comey says "potential" violations after saying before there was evidence of classified and top secret emails on the private server.

Singer, your man is going to jail.

The magistrate was not Jeffery Epstein's lawyer, still. That would be Alan Dershowisz (you know the guy who was part of trumps impeachment team).

Was he at one time the lawyer for employees of Epstein? Yes.

But, you? Definitely not sheep.