Here's why they cannot indict Trump, no matter how many classified documents that he failed to return they find

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

That's correct, you are nowhere close to sane.

It's pretty much a FACT that trump stole top secret documents.
You just think is not a crime, unless Hillary did it.

It obviously wasn't a crime when Hillary did it. Remember?

 

[2aguy]

It's the Hillary Doctrine, as stated by James Comey:



Hillary falsely claimed that she never sent or received classified documents over her private email server, with classification markings, when she indeed had classified documents, with classification markings, on her email servers.

She falsely claimed that she had returned all work-related emails, but the FBI found thousands that were not returned. She falsely told the DOJ that her lawyers had read all of the emails to determine which were personal and which were work-related, and were overly inclusive in returning those work-related, when her lawyers had not looked at each email individually, but used some sort of search function.

she falsely claimed not to have emailed any classified documents (over a servers less secure than a gmail account), when she had.

Those are false exculpatory statements, which Comey stated are used as evidence of intent.

This is not about telling a cop "why give me a speeding ticket when so many others are speeding." It's about completely disparate treatment of one person over another based on Party affiliation.

If you got a ticketed one morning on a road in which many others were speeding, you might just chalk it up to bad luck. If an army of traffic cops hound you for seven years with radar guns, chase vehicles, and helicopters measuring the time it takes you to drive between two marks on the road, when they ignore other drivers who actually are speeding, you would not think it was co-ink-ee-dink.

No...not the Hilary doctrine.......Comey didn't want hilary indicted, and the democrat party didn't have the then attorney general indict her because they are democrats and protect the clintons.....

Trump was the sitting President of the United States with the sole power to declassify anything he wanted to declassify.......hilary did not have that power or ability, she had an unsecured server with which she conducted top secret government business, in full violation of the law....she had no power to declassify or destroy any documents..........

Trump also worked from Mar A Lago as President so it was essentially a 2nd White House with all the security that went with that. Even out of office he had 24/7 Secret Service protection and maintained his top secret security clearance.....

So no, they are not the same thing.......not even close.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Are you whackos hiring Robert Mueller for $50 million to prove you wrong again?

If they use him again, Adult Protective Services should investigate for elder abuse.

 

[Lesh]

It's the Hillary Doctrine, as stated by James Comey:



Hillary falsely claimed that she never sent or received classified documents over her private email server, with classification markings, when she indeed had classified documents, with classification markings, on her email servers.

She falsely claimed that she had returned all work-related emails, but the FBI found thousands that were not returned. She falsely told the DOJ that her lawyers had read all of the emails to determine which were personal and which were work-related, and were overly inclusive in returning those work-related, when her lawyers had not looked at each email individually, but used some sort of search function.

she falsely claimed not to have emailed any classified documents (over a servers less secure than a gmail account), when she had.

Those are false exculpatory statements, which Comey stated are used as evidence of intent.

This is not about telling a cop "why give me a speeding ticket when so many others are speeding." It's about completely disparate treatment of one person over another based on Party affiliation.

If you got a ticketed one morning on a road in which many others were speeding, you might just chalk it up to bad luck. If an army of traffic cops hound you for seven years with radar guns, chase vehicles, and helicopters measuring the time it takes you to drive between two marks on the road, when they ignore other drivers who actually are speeding, you would not think it was co-ink-ee-dink.

trump stole top secret documents.
FACT

Butter emails ain't cutting it with anyone but the cult

 

[Richard-H]

It's the Hillary Doctrine, as stated by James Comey:



Hillary falsely claimed that she never sent or received classified documents over her private email server, with classification markings, when she indeed had classified documents, with classification markings, on her email servers.

She falsely claimed that she had returned all work-related emails, but the FBI found thousands that were not returned. She falsely told the DOJ that her lawyers had read all of the emails to determine which were personal and which were work-related, and were overly inclusive in returning those work-related, when her lawyers had not looked at each email individually, but used some sort of search function.

she falsely claimed not to have emailed any classified documents (over a servers less secure than a gmail account), when she had.

Those are false exculpatory statements, which Comey stated are used as evidence of intent.

This is not about telling a cop "why give me a speeding ticket when so many others are speeding." It's about completely disparate treatment of one person over another based on Party affiliation.

If you got a ticketed one morning on a road in which many others were speeding, you might just chalk it up to bad luck. If an army of traffic cops hound you for seven years with radar guns, chase vehicles, and helicopters measuring the time it takes you to drive between two marks on the road, when they ignore other drivers who actually are speeding, you would not think it was co-ink-ee-dink.

Thank you ever soooo much for the 'What about Hillary' thread!

Now do you have any reason to believe that they can't indict Trump?

...didn't think so....

 

[CowboyTed]

It's the Hillary Doctrine, as stated by James Comey:



Hillary falsely claimed that she never sent or received classified documents over her private email server, with classification markings, when she indeed had classified documents, with classification markings, on her email servers.

She falsely claimed that she had returned all work-related emails, but the FBI found thousands that were not returned. She falsely told the DOJ that her lawyers had read all of the emails to determine which were personal and which were work-related, and were overly inclusive in returning those work-related, when her lawyers had not looked at each email individually, but used some sort of search function.

she falsely claimed not to have emailed any classified documents (over a servers less secure than a gmail account), when she had.

Those are false exculpatory statements, which Comey stated are used as evidence of intent.

This is not about telling a cop "why give me a speeding ticket when so many others are speeding." It's about completely disparate treatment of one person over another based on Party affiliation.

If you got a ticketed one morning on a road in which many others were speeding, you might just chalk it up to bad luck. If an army of traffic cops hound you for seven years with radar guns, chase vehicles, and helicopters measuring the time it takes you to drive between two marks on the road, when they ignore other drivers who actually are speeding, you would not think it was co-ink-ee-dink.

You know it doesn't matter what Hillary does...
It doesn't make Trump any more guilty or innocent...

How little do you know about the law..

 

[Chillicothe]

"If he had declassified those documents then there would be record of it. There is no record of it."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what I have read also.
No one has a record of these so-call 'de-classifications'.

Simply saying, ex-post facto, that they they were de-classified....just ain't the way America wants or needs for its secrets to be protected, to be tended to.

If they are secrets....then revealing them must follow a process, a methodology so that all the stake-holders involved do not do something dumb/dangerous/lethal because of their lack of awareness that a secret has been revealed.

We all know that. Instinctively. Because it makes sense. And I know you all know that too.

Until and unless we have credible reportage, credible documentation, that DTrump ---while he was POTUS --- did, in fact, 'de-classify' this secret, or that secret....well then, I don't believe he did. And declaring that he had is now merely a legal stratagem to avoid culpability.

Don Trump and/or his enablers will need to prove otherwise.
Simply saying "I did so"...ain't proof, ain't enough.

 

[CowboyTed]

funny how you think clinton hiding thousands of documents including top secret documents on an illegal unsecured server for years isn’t a scandal

Trump was President for 4 years, he ran on locking her up (well they said it enough)...

Trump failed to arrest and convict Hillary with the DOJ at his disposal...

So is Trump incompetent as well as a crook?

 

[struth]

Patience, Grasshopper.
That cake is still baking.
DTrump seems to be in a pickle (again).
So let's be patient and vigilant and see what develops.
After all, the news out of the MAL search-thingy seems to keep getting worse and worser for the owner of the golf club.
IMHO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that may very well come to pass....both the election business, and the subsequent investigations. So be it. It has been ever thus.

In the meantime though, if the DOJ acquires evidence and proofs that their seasoned and experienced prosecutors believe is reliable enough and persuasive enough to take before a grand jury with the intention to seek an indictment.......well, shouldn't they do that as required by their sworn oath?

Shouldn't America be shown what this evidence is (via a trial)?
Should the allegations of improperly taken sensitive documents be examined and autopsied in a transparent venue?

In short, if Don Trump committed crimes should he not be held accountable before a jury of his peers? Ala' the American Constitution? Then all of America can feel assured that no individual is above the laws of the land. If he is innocent of whatever charges.....then we need know that. If he is guilty.....then, of course, we need know that too.

haha Jim Jones picked dems for a reason

 

[struth]

Bullshit. There is no proof to support this foolish fantasy.

what? really? are you denying reality?

 

[Seymour Flops]

speaking of lost it, have you ever considered the fact, that if Trump wasn't guilty of this crime, he would have already produced the recipts on how this money was spent? there is a reason he has not. And if any human being can't deduce there is a crime here, they are simply covering for a criminal, or too dumb for simple debate.

You don't seem to know how criminal cases work. Happy to explain.

The defense has no obligation to present its evidence until the prosecution finishes presenting its case in chief at the trial. Even then, if the prosecution evidence is flimsy enough, the defense can ask for a directed verdict of not guilty and only present a case if that motion is denied.

Defense attorney strategy is to not present any evidence until required to in order to avoid giving the prosecution an opportunity to tailor their case to lessen the impact of the defense evidence.

Sure, Trump could rush out and say, "here's my evidence!" in order to get it out there. But out where? The media would black out any news that is exculpatory to Trump, and Big Tech is openly censoring him. Anyone who has been awake the last seven years will see this latest "investigation," as another part of Operation Get Trump, which has so far convicted him of zero crimes.

They've never even indicted him, for the obvious reason that an indictment means a trial, and a trial means Trump gets to present evidence also, not just be smeared by leaks. You do get that, right? That the jury would have to hear actual evidence, from witnesses subject to cross examination, not just read leaks on MSNBC.com? The last thing the DNC/DOJ/FBI wants is to walk into a courtroom and face Team Trump.

But, hey! Maybe this will finally be "The One." If that happens, Trump will present his evidence when and if the DOJ presents a credible case.

 

[struth]

Trump was President for 4 years, he ran on locking her up (well they said it enough)...

Trump failed to arrest and convict Hillary with the DOJ at his disposal...

So is Trump incompetent as well as a crook?

trump gave her a de facto pardon. He was a president that wanted to bring people together.

He, like Ford, tried to put that dark history behind us. Little did he know demafasict weren’t

 

[struth]

Nope, not at all, and I proved it.

how? when.?

 

[struth]

You didn't read it you fool.

i did.

 

[BS Filter]

trump stole top secret documents.
FACT

Wrong. Only one person can declassify documents. The President. Guess which President did that when he left office. The democrats want to know what Trump has on them. That's all this is about, and like the pawns y'all are, you fall for the bullshit about "classified documents".

 

[Lesh]

Wrong. Only one person can declassify documents. The President. Guess which President did that when he left office. The democrats want to know what Trump has on them. That's all this is about, and like the pawns y'all are, you fall for the bullshit about "classified documents".

Well we have the QAnon "take" on this situation

 

[struth]

Well we have the QAnon "take" on this situation

you clinton people don’t have standing on this

 

[CowboyTed]

It obviously wasn't a crime when Hillary did it. Remember?

It doesn't fucking matter...

Explain how you tell a judge 'But, but, Hillary......'

Trump had the DOJ at his disposal for 4 years, How was he so incompetent not to have her arrested and convicted?
He had his followers chant it.
The way it sounds, Hillary email stuff was just made up bullshit for Trump to spread crap to get elected. It was either:

• Not a crime.
• Trump is incompetent

 

[CowboyTed]

Well we have the QAnon "take" on this situation

I think he is admitting Trump took classified documents by inventing a motive....

Fuck these guys are stupid..

 

[Seymour Flops]

That's correct, you are nowhere close to sane.

It's pretty much a FACT that trump stole top secret documents.
You just think is not a crime, unless Hillary did it.

Where's the indictment?