Donald Trump Indicted Again.

[KansasTiger 3,261]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am convinced history will demonstrate you are wrong.

We've undergone periods of public distrust in our institutions, often severe - such as during Viet Nam.  But we've never had a president deliberately undermine public faith in our institutions as Trump has. Shame on you for being a part of it.

Hell, there are MAGA congressmen laying this whole thing on Biden trying to take down a political rival.  What nonsense, as this indictment clearly demonstrates.  Basically they are saying Trump is above the law.

 

For the first time in my life, I am taking responsibility for myself and choose to no longer blindly believe in anything in this country. And i am extremely proud of that. And honestly that started even before Trump. I dont care about trump. But I know that me, my family, and most of the neighbors I know, won't ever, ever, trust the media and most government institutions again until there are wholesale changes, which is unlikely to happen. And it isn't because of some change in those institutions, as I'm convinced they've been corrupt for some time. Some of us are just paying attention a bit more now. People that think like me are growing, and that gives me hope real change can happen someday.

Your message makes me sad. But not for the reasons you wanted. But because deep down I know that because of people like you, our country is probably doomed in the long run. I pray you wake up someday before it's too late, but I won't count on it.

Edited June 10, 2023 by KansasTiger

[TexasTiger 13,119]

[AUDub 11,204]

2 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

For the first time in my life, I am taking responsibility for myself and choose to no longer blindly believe in anything in this country. And i am extremely proud of that. And honestly that started even before Trump. I dont care about trump. But I know that me, my family, and most of the neighbors I know, won't ever, ever, trust the media and most government institutions again until there are wholesale changes, which is unlikely to happen. And it isn't because of some change in those institutions, as I'm convinced they've been corrupt for some time. Some of us are just paying attention a bit more now. People that think like me are growing, and that gives me hope real change can happen someday.

Your message makes me sad. But not for the reasons you wanted. But because deep down I know that because of people like you, our country is probably doomed in the long run. I pray you wake up someday before it's too late, but I won't count on it.

*sigh*

"Dear diary..."

[TexasTiger 13,119]

3 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

For the first time in my life, I am taking responsibility for myself and choose to no longer blindly believe in anything in this country. And i am extremely proud of that. And honestly that started even before Trump. I dont care about trump. But I know that me, my family, and most of the neighbors I know, won't ever, ever, trust the media and most government institutions again until there are wholesale changes, which is unlikely to happen. And it isn't because of some change in those institutions, as I'm convinced they've been corrupt for some time. Some of us are just paying attention a bit more now. People that think like me are growing, and that gives me hope real change can happen someday.

Your message makes me sad. But not for the reasons you wanted. But because deep down I know that because of people like you, our country is probably doomed in the long run. I pray you wake up someday before it's too late, but I won't count on it.

Our country does appear to be doomed. But it’s mostly because folks have embraced or at least tolerated a totally destructive narcissist who only cares about himself and couldn’t give two s*#ts about the country. The rule of law matters, but too many folks have been persuaded it doesn’t or convinced it’s rigged against “conservatives.” This isn’t our only problem. There are excesses on the left that, given time, could be destructive. But the Trump embrace lit an accelerated fuse and he and others pour gas all around it daily.

[AU9377 5,134]

15 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Out of 126? emails only 8 were retroactively upgraded. 

They found no emails that were marked classified at the time they were transmitted.  The nuance is that, although not marked classified, some likely contained information that some branch of govt deemed classified.

The point is that charging her based on the facts of the situation would have resulted in an acquittal.  The statutes require either knowingly transmitting classified information to an unauthorized person or gross negligence if the information concerns national security.  Being that both Condi Rice and Colin Powell both used multiple email accounts, both private and government (Colin Powell had an AOL account), showing gross negligence was not possible.  Like her or not, she isn't an idiot.  She cooperated fully.  For people to compare that situation to the Trump case in a way that implies they are somehow similar just shows that they really don't understand or don't want to understand how they aren't.

[AU9377 5,134]

3 hours ago, KansasTiger said:

For the first time in my life, I am taking responsibility for myself and choose to no longer blindly believe in anything in this country. And i am extremely proud of that. And honestly that started even before Trump. I dont care about trump. But I know that me, my family, and most of the neighbors I know, won't ever, ever, trust the media and most government institutions again until there are wholesale changes, which is unlikely to happen. And it isn't because of some change in those institutions, as I'm convinced they've been corrupt for some time. Some of us are just paying attention a bit more now. People that think like me are growing, and that gives me hope real change can happen someday.

Your message makes me sad. But not for the reasons you wanted. But because deep down I know that because of people like you, our country is probably doomed in the long run. I pray you wake up someday before it's too late, but I won't count on it.

There are clear paths to change in this country.  One of those paths is not to just throw your hands up and declare that the country should be destroyed in order to make it better.  One of our biggest challenges right now is the amount of false information that many consume on a daily basis.

For example.....  I have worked in elections for years.  There are so many redundant checks built into our system that I have absolute faith in the outcome of the results.  The system is so large and so diversified that any sort of conspiracy to fix an election would literally be an impossible task.

All the same, it only took Fox and the far right a matter of days to convince almost half the country that the last election had been stolen.  They even had the audacity to invent fake news stories and attach those fake stories to companies that made tabulation systems.

Now that we are over 2 years removed, they have been forced to pay hundreds of millions and admit that they lied to the American public.  Even so, their audience still believes that the evil other side took something from them.  As a country, we have to be smarter than that if we are going to leave our children a country worth having.

This country has survived much more difficult times than the current state of affairs.  We got thru those times by learning how to respect each other and moving forward.  There is no us and them, we are all Americans and if we want that to mean something, we can't assume that someone we disagree with is our enemy.  Everything cannot be about politics.

[AU9377 5,134]

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Seriously?

100% ABSOLUTELY THEY DO

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbis-trump-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-probe-heres/story?id=89069046

To charge any of them with violating 793(e), prosecutors would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton or her aides acted "willfully" and "with the intent to do something the law forbids," the Justice Department's inspector general said in its report on the case.

Prosecutors determined that the evidence and facts of Clinton's case showed "a lack of intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems," especially since "[n]one of the emails Clinton received were properly marked to inform her of the classified status of the information," and investigators found evidence that Clinton and her aides "worded emails carefully in an attempt to 'talk around' classified information," according to the inspector general's report.

"There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information," prosecutors concluded, according to the inspector general.

[DKW 86 7,479]

6 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Stop blaming the media.  Blame yourself if you are dumb enough to believe everything you hear/see on the opinion shows.  Blame yourself if you cannot discern news from entertainment.  You are trying so hard to be objective,,, you have made everything subjective.  It is not logical, not rational.

homey, is that you?

[DKW 86 7,479]

36 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

They found no emails that were marked classified at the time they were transmitted.  The nuance is that, although not marked classified, some likely contained information that some branch of govt deemed classified.

The point is that charging her based on the facts of the situation would have resulted in an acquittal.  The statutes require either knowingly transmitting classified information to an unauthorized person or gross negligence if the information concerns national security.  Being that both Condi Rice and Colin Powell both used multiple email accounts, both private and government (Colin Powell had an AOL account), showing gross negligence was not possible.  Like her or not, she isn't an idiot.  She cooperated fully.  For people to compare that situation to the Trump case in a way that implies they are somehow similar just shows that they really don't understand or don't want to understand how they aren't.

I think we are going to need a solid link to a real source for that one. In my reading this just doesn't match up at all.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/sep/13/hillary-clinton/clinton-exaggerates-absence-classified-information/

We have previously compared Clinton’s emails with the FBI’s search on Mar-a-Lago and have fact-checked other claims she has made about her emails.

Over the years, the facts about the emails have become clearer.

In 2016, Clinton said she "never received nor sent any material that was marked classified" on her private email server while secretary of state. We rated that False.

Since then, the State Department and Justice Department have published new information from their own investigations of the emails. 

Some of Clinton’s emails contained classified information, but none were found to be marked as such. 

What we know about the markings in Clinton’s emails

Clinton’s email troubles started in 2014, when the House Select Committee on Benghazi asked the State Department for all of her emails. The department didn’t have them all because, instead of using only the State Department email system (with an email address ending in @state.gov), Clinton used a personal email address (ending in @clintonemail.com) housed on private servers in her Chappaqua, New York, home.

In 2014, Clinton’s lawyers combed through the private server and turned over about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted the rest, which Clinton said involved personal matters, such as her daughter’s wedding plans.

On July 5, 2016, the FBI released its findings on an investigation into Clinton’s emails. Then-FBI Director James Comey said of the 30,000 emails, 113 were determined to have contained classified information at the time they were sent.

[TexasTiger 13,119]

19 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

100% ABSOLUTELY THEY DO

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbis-trump-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-probe-heres/story?id=89069046

To charge any of them with violating 793(e), prosecutors would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton or her aides acted "willfully" and "with the intent to do something the law forbids," the Justice Department's inspector general said in its report on the case.

Prosecutors determined that the evidence and facts of Clinton's case showed "a lack of intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems," especially since "[n]one of the emails Clinton received were properly marked to inform her of the classified status of the information," and investigators found evidence that Clinton and her aides "worded emails carefully in an attempt to 'talk around' classified information," according to the inspector general's report.

"There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information," prosecutors concluded, according to the inspector general.

You and your damned facts!

[homersapien 11,499]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Well, when the media starts getting stuff correct, I will. All I am saying is act like a grownup and don't jump the shark before this case gets to a jury.

How many times have we been told walls closing in...bombshell report... the beginning of the end?

Well, in this case the media is simply reporting the facts of the indictment.

But to your point, it's quite possible Trump will get off again. 

After all, the case will be tried in Florida and the prosecutors have an almost impossible job to seat 12 jurors who will aren't MAGA cultists and are objectively willing to do the right thing.  But it that happens, its not the media's fault. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,901]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

There are clear paths to change in this country.  One of those paths is not to just throw your hands up and declare that the country should be destroyed in order to make it better.  One of our biggest challenges right now is the amount of false information that many consume on a daily basis.

For example.....  I have worked in elections for years.  There are so many redundant checks built into our system that I have absolute faith in the outcome of the results.  The system is so large and so diversified that any sort of conspiracy to fix an election would literally be an impossible task.

All the same, it only took Fox and the far right a matter of days to convince almost half the country that the last election had been stolen.  They even had the audacity to invent fake news stories and attach those fake stories to companies that made tabulation systems.

Now that we are over 2 years removed, they have been forced to pay hundreds of millions and admit that they lied to the American public.  Even so, their audience still believes that the evil other side took something from them.  As a country, we have to be smarter than that if we are going to leave our children a country worth having.

This country has survived much more difficult times than the current state of affairs.  We got thru those times by learning how to respect each other and moving forward.  There is no us and them, we are all Americans and if we want that to mean something, we can't assume that someone we disagree with is our enemy.  Everything cannot be about politics.

Five lengthy paragraphs to inform of us that the problem is Fox and idiots. If you are practicing for a closing argument weak.

[AUFAN78 3,943]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

100% ABSOLUTELY THEY DO

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbis-trump-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-probe-heres/story?id=89069046

To charge any of them with violating 793(e), prosecutors would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton or her aides acted "willfully" and "with the intent to do something the law forbids," the Justice Department's inspector general said in its report on the case.

Prosecutors determined that the evidence and facts of Clinton's case showed "a lack of intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems," especially since "[n]one of the emails Clinton received were properly marked to inform her of the classified status of the information," and investigators found evidence that Clinton and her aides "worded emails carefully in an attempt to 'talk around' classified information," according to the inspector general's report.

"There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information," prosecutors concluded, according to the inspector general.

Experts and government officials at the time stated Clinton's use of a private server and email system violated federal law. Specifically regarding unauthorized removal and retention of classified data as well as violated State Department protocols.

We all know Comey did not charge her claiming in his book that his decision was influenced by the fact that she was the likely next president.

Polling at the time indicated 56% of Americans felt she should have been charged with 35% saying they were fine with result. (guessing you were in the latter) 

Common refrain was a coverup and just another beltway elite getting away with something you or I would be imprisoned for. 

Can you imagine if Trump had done this? Which side of this argument would you be on? (no need to answer, we know)

Or suppose Trump had simply lit a match to his files? All is well right? Yeah, you bet.

 

 

 

 

[AU9377 5,134]

58 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Experts and government officials at the time stated Clinton's use of a private server and email system violated federal law. Specifically regarding unauthorized removal and retention of classified data as well as violated State Department protocols.

We all know Comey did not charge her claiming in his book that his decision was influenced by the fact that she was the likely next president.

Polling at the time indicated 56% of Americans felt she should have been charged with 35% saying they were fine with result. (guessing you were in the latter) 

Common refrain was a coverup and just another beltway elite getting away with something you or I would be imprisoned for. 

Can you imagine if Trump had done this? Which side of this argument would you be on? (no need to answer, we know)

Or suppose Trump had simply lit a match to his files? All is well right? Yeah, you bet.

 

 

 

 

He didn't indict her because.... as he actually stated...the FBI could not “find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts” as “all the cases prosecuted by the Justice Dept prior 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 interference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here,”

Your assumptions are just that... assumptions.  You want the two set of facts to be similar.  Unfortunately, all the wanting in the world won't make that happen.

When a prosecutor decides whether and what to charge, they first look to the law itself to make certain that the facts at hand meet what the statute requires for a conviction. All federal laws but for one statute require a finding that the person "knowingly" violated the law.  In other words, there would need to be evidence showing that she knowingly transmitted classified or received classified documents in violation of those applicable laws. When the FBI examined approx 33,000 of her emails, it found, according to their investigators, a conscious effort to avoid discussing classified information.  You can choose to not believe that.  People choose to believe fairy tales every day.  However, that is what they discovered.

As for the one statute that does not require a finding of intent.... I will paste it here for you to read.

"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

I'm not the one that doesn't understand the problem with charging her under that statute and why the Trump situation is absolutely nothing remotely similar in factual make up.  I would rather not see Trump convicted criminally because I believe that it is bad for the country.  However, he left the DOJ no choice.  How many times should the National Archives be forced to subpoena classified documents that he had in his possession?  He clearly lied every time he stated that there were no classified documents in his possession.  He even directed his legal counsel to lie to the court. 

It is really disgusting how so many of you have blinders on and refuse to pull back on your blatant hypocrisy long enough to see what is right in front of you.

[AUFAN78 3,943]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

He didn't indict her because.... as he actually stated...the FBI could not “find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts” as “all the cases prosecuted by the Justice Dept prior 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 interference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here,”

Your assumptions are just that... assumptions.  You want the two set of facts to be similar.  Unfortunately, all the wanting in the world won't make that happen.

When a prosecutor decides whether and what to charge, they first look to the law itself to make certain that the facts at hand meet what the statute requires for a conviction. All federal laws but for one statute require a finding that the person "knowingly" violated the law.  In other words, there would need to be evidence showing that she knowingly transmitted classified or received classified documents in violation of those applicable laws. When the FBI examined approx 33,000 of her emails, it found, according to their investigators, a conscious effort to avoid discussing classified information.  You can choose to not believe that.  People choose to believe fairy tales every day.  However, that is what they discovered.

As for the one statute that does not require a finding of intent.... I will paste it here for you to read.

"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

I'm not the one that doesn't understand the problem with charging her under that statute and why the Trump situation is absolutely nothing remotely similar in factual make up.  I would rather not see Trump convicted criminally because I believe that it is bad for the country.  However, he left the DOJ no choice.  How many times should the National Archives be forced to subpoena classified documents that he had in his possession?  He clearly lied every time he stated that there were no classified documents in his possession.  He even directed his legal counsel to lie to the court. 

It is really disgusting how so many of you have blinders on and refuse to pull back on your blatant hypocrisy long enough to see what is right in front of you.

Experts and government officials at the time stated Clinton's use of a private server and email system violated federal law. Specifically regarding unauthorized removal and retention of classified data as well as violated State Department protocols.

We all know Comey did not charge her claiming in his book that his decision was influenced by the fact that she was the likely next president.

Polling at the time indicated 56% of Americans felt she should have been charged with 35% saying they were fine with result. (guessing you were in the latter) 

Common refrain was a coverup and just another beltway elite getting away with something you or I would be imprisoned for. 

Can you imagine if Trump had done this? Which side of this argument would you be on? (no need to answer, we know)

Or suppose Trump had simply lit a match to his files? All is well right? Yeah, you bet.

[AU9377 5,134]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Experts and government officials at the time stated Clinton's use of a private server and email system violated federal law. Specifically regarding unauthorized removal and retention of classified data as well as violated State Department protocols.

We all know Comey did not charge her claiming in his book that his decision was influenced by the fact that she was the likely next president.

Polling at the time indicated 56% of Americans felt she should have been charged with 35% saying they were fine with result. (guessing you were in the latter) 

Common refrain was a coverup and just another beltway elite getting away with something you or I would be imprisoned for. 

Can you imagine if Trump had done this? Which side of this argument would you be on? (no need to answer, we know)

Or suppose Trump had simply lit a match to his files? All is well right? Yeah, you bet.

"Experts and government officials" ...specifically those that make decisions on whether or not to prosecute a case decided differently for very specific reasons that I have explained to you.  I can give you the information, but I cannot understand it for you.

"We all know"... Really?  What I know are the specific reasons that Comey explained at the time he announced the decision.  If you would step back and consider the fact that Hillary Clinton isn't some grand evil villain that has the singular goal of destroying America, it might be possible to see things for what they are and not as part of some grand conspiracy.

Polling has nothing to do with whether a person should be charged with a crime or not.  Polling also showed Hitler having widespread support among Germans in 1939.  One matters as much as the other.

"Common refrain".... if your media exposure is Fox and their s*** stirring pathetic excuse for journalism, that may be true.  However, it is nonetheless irrelevant.

Trump would have never been charged if this is what occurred in his case.  Do you really think the FBI would find any evidence that he made deliberate efforts to not discuss classified information if they examined all of his devices that he has used since running for President? They inspected around 30 different devices that Clinton used and found that very thing.

The DOJ went out of their way attempting to get Trump to comply with the rules.  Trump literally lied at every opportunity.  Now you want to defend him by whining about Hillary Clinton.... the Sorcerer of the Deep State in your mind. It should embarrass you all.  The fact that you are so partisan that you are willing to be led around by a rope and a nose ring just shines the light on what this is really all about and it isn't pretty.

[AUFAN78 3,943]

18 hours ago, AU9377 said:

For example.....  I have worked in elections for years.  There are so many redundant checks built into our system that I have absolute faith in the outcome of the results.  The system is so large and so diversified that any sort of conspiracy to fix an election would literally be an impossible task.

Sounds like another situation in which you are willing to turn a blind eye towards corruption as long as you benefit. Not surprising at all. And for the record, unmanned drop boxes are not secure. Nor are blanket mailouts which provide no verification. Not to mention ballot harvesting. But all is well .

[DKW 86 7,479]

36 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Experts and government officials at the time stated Clinton's use of a private server and email system violated federal law. Specifically regarding unauthorized removal and retention of classified data as well as violated State Department protocols.

We all know Comey did not charge her claiming in his book that his decision was influenced by the fact that she was the likely next president.

Polling at the time indicated 56% of Americans felt she should have been charged with 35% saying they were fine with result. (guessing you were in the latter) 

Common refrain was a coverup and just another beltway elite getting away with something you or I would be imprisoned for. 

Can you imagine if Trump had done this? Which side of this argument would you be on? (no need to answer, we know)

Or suppose Trump had simply lit a match to his files? All is well right? Yeah, you bet.

Man, just quit. There are some on here that believe **** Truth and Facts! Party Uber Alles!

How many times was it plainly stated what you just showed? Dozens? Hundreds? HRC had 100 or more CLEARLY marked classified docs on her server. How could she even tell a lie like that? Simple. Her quote: Nothing on the server was "marked classified" because in the history of the US Govt, NOTHING has ever been "marked classified." The docs are marked NOFORN, FYEO, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, etc. NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN "MARKED CLASSIFIED." 

Instead of dealing with facts and truth, we have idiots that are too busy kissing party ass.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by DKW 86

[TexasTiger 13,119]

[TexasTiger 13,119]

Just now, DKW 86 said:

Man, just quit. There are some on here that believe **** Truth and Facts! Party Uber Alles!

How many times was it plainly stated what you just showed? Dozens? Hundreds? HRC had 100 or more CLEARLY marked classified docs on her server. How could she even tell a lie like that? Simple. Her quote: Nothing on the server was "marked classified" because in the history of the US Govt, NOTHING has ever been "marked classified." The docs are marked NOFORN, FYEO, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, etc. NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN "MARKED CLASSIFIED."

But please keep right on fiddling while Rome Burns...

 

You’ve been vomiting the same crap on every thread for the last seven years even when it’s about something else. 

[AUFAN78 3,943]

31 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

"Experts and government officials" ...specifically those that make decisions on whether or not to prosecute a case decided differently for very specific reasons that I have explained to you.  I can give you the information, but I cannot understand it for you. The experts and government officials that stated what Hillary did was illegal were not the prosecutors. Don't try to be cute. 

What I know are the specific reasons that Comey explained at the time he announced the decision.  He stated in his book he was influenced by the fact she was going to be the next president. Why can't you admit as much?

If you would step back and consider the fact that Hillary Clinton isn't some grand evil villain that has the singular goal of destroying America, it might be possible to see things for what they are and not as part of some grand conspiracy. Highly disagree.

Polling has nothing to do with whether a person should be charged with a crime or not.  Polling also showed Hitler having widespread support among Germans in 1939.  One matters as much as the other. Did you really say that? Are you that dense? 

"Common refrain".... if your media exposure is Fox and their s*** stirring pathetic excuse for journalism, that may be true.  However, it is nonetheless irrelevant. SMH at your stupidity. It means 56% compared to 35% believe she is a crook. Yes, I am in the 56 percentile.

Trump would have never been charged if this is what occurred in his case.  Do you really think the FBI would find any evidence that he made deliberate efforts to not discuss classified information if they examined all of his devices that he has used since running for President? They inspected around 30 different devices that Clinton used and found that very thing. Ah yes, Trump could have lit a match to the boxes and all would be well. And of course he wasn't charged in the Russia hoax. SMH

The DOJ went out of their way attempting to get Trump to comply with the rules.  Trump literally lied at every opportunity. I agree.

Now you want to defend him by whining about Hillary Clinton.... the Sorcerer of the Deep State in your mind. It should embarrass you all.  The fact that you are so partisan that you are willing to be led around by a rope and a nose ring just shines the light on what this is really all about and it isn't pretty. Unlike you, Trump does not reside in my brain. I think he could have easily returned the files, but he is an arrogant sob and didn't thus the charge. I also realize those files are defended by secret service and as far as I can tell have caused no harm. But you've not seen me defend Trump. What you have seen is my opinion of Hillary. 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by AUFAN78

[AUFAN78 3,943]

14 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Man, just quit. There are some on here that believe **** Truth and Facts! Party Uber Alles!

How many times was it plainly stated what you just showed? Dozens? Hundreds? HRC had 100 or more CLEARLY marked classified docs on her server. How could she even tell a lie like that? Simple. Her quote: Nothing on the server was "marked classified" because in the history of the US Govt, NOTHING has ever been "marked classified." The docs are marked NOFORN, FYEO, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, etc. NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN "MARKED CLASSIFIED." 

Instead of dealing with facts and truth, we have idiots that are too busy kissing party ass.

 

 

LOL. Good news is I have to quit shortly. Just got the crew ready and out to the pool. Time to smoke some wings and have a cold one or three..

 

[AU9377 5,134]

25 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Sounds like another situation in which you are willing to turn a blind eye towards corruption as long as you benefit. Not surprising at all. And for the record, unmanned drop boxes are not secure. Nor are blanket mailouts which provide no verification. Not to mention ballot harvesting. But all is well .

There is verification with EVERY ballot received, without exception.  By blanket mailouts, you mean mailing a ballot to every registered voter during an international pandemic, which was not done in Georgia, yet someone was still looking and demanding approx 1800 votes be found somewhere when all votes were counted.

[AUFAN78 3,943]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

There is verification with EVERY ballot received, without exception.  By blanket mailouts, you mean mailing a ballot to every registered voter during an international pandemic, which was not done in Georgia, yet someone was still looking and demanding approx 1800 votes be found somewhere when all votes were counted.

Verification with every ballot, without exception?

So I received, via mail, this ballot during this international pandemic. How exactly do you know that it is I that completed it? 

[AU9377 5,134]

23 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Man, just quit. There are some on here that believe **** Truth and Facts! Party Uber Alles!

How many times was it plainly stated what you just showed? Dozens? Hundreds? HRC had 100 or more CLEARLY marked classified docs on her server. How could she even tell a lie like that? Simple. Her quote: Nothing on the server was "marked classified" because in the history of the US Govt, NOTHING has ever been "marked classified." The docs are marked NOFORN, FYEO, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, etc. NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN "MARKED CLASSIFIED." 

Instead of dealing with facts and truth, we have idiots that are too busy kissing party ass.

 

 

I'll explain this clearly again.  According to the FBI, the emails in question did not have classified markings when transmitted, although ___________ contained classified information.  Classified markings include what you listed above and more.
 

In other words, in the SUBJECT HEADING, the email wasn't marked with any identifying heading as is usually the case when classified information is transmitted.  Make no mistake, that type information is transmitted daily at that level of government.  That is really irrelevant due to the fact that ... as stated by the FBI at the time of the announcement to not charge.....the FBI could not

“find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts” as “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 interference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”

THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CHARGE THAT SHE KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY HELD AND TRANSMITTED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.  Without that evidence, the only charge available requires a finding of GROSS NEGLIGENCE and the classified information must be related to National Defense.  They weren't going to be able to prove "gross negligence" given the fact that the two prior Secretaries had used multiple unsecured email accounts in the same manner and there was also no evidence that the information considered to be classified had anything to do with national defense.

If it ain't there .... it ain't there.  That leads to two options.  Recommend that no charges be filed OR prepare to get your ass beat to a pulp and have your legal career flushed when you lose badly at trial.