No Threats to National Security found in Trump Documents.

[Couchpotato]

I believe she deleted them.

After it came out that the server existed, it was a thing and she was told to turn over the server as evidence yes, I do believe she deleted them which I think would be illegal as well. We won't even get into the fact that her use of the server for Government business in the first place is illegal for the same reasons everyone is so pissed off at Trump for taking even unclassified documents to Mar a Lag. Those emails don't belong to her they belong to the US government. I get why she did it. Her stint as Sec State was just a steppingstone for her to run for the Presidency and she didn't want anyone to FOIA her record at State. It's a smart move, albeit an illegal one, if you can get away with it. She didn't. But acting like she didn't break the law is just revisionist history for your team's sake.

BTW did she delete them before or after the Chinese and God only knows how many other foreign governments accessed that server?

Chinese company reportedly hacked Clinton's server, got copy of every email in real-time

A Chinese state-owned company reportedly hacked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server, then inserted code that forwarded them a copy of virtually every email she sent or received after that -- a revelation President Trump is demanding be investigated.

www.foxnews.com

Oh, and how many foreign governments broke into that room at Mar A Lago? Was it zero or less than that?

Tell me again how what Trump was a greater risk to national security than what Hilary did...

Im not a fan of Trump but what Hillary did was worse at least from an ultimate outcome perspective.

 

[Couchpotato]

The relevant statutes make it a crime to knowingly hold on to national security documents. That's it. That's the only relevance that intent has.

Did Trump know these documents weren't his? Since the government went as far as issuing a subpoena for them he'll be hard pressed to claim otherwise. Especially if they give an affidavit stating they gave everything back and a search warrant showed otherwise.

Your argument is that his motive is exculpatory as long as his motive wasn't keeping documents for personal gain. It simply isn't. Stubbornness and ego aren't excuses.

But if the subpoena says they want all the documents owned by the Government returned and he thinks he owns them..... That's just following the logic that he took them because he thought they were his.

 

[forkup]

But if the subpoena says they want all the documents owned by the Government returned and he thinks he owns them..... That's just following the logic that he took them because he thought they were his.

If you rob a bank you can't use "I'm a customer at that bank, therefor the money is mine as an excuse."

Believing something to be true although the law clearly states otherwise isn't a justification for breaking that law.

The Presidential Records Act, proscribes in detail what records are deemed personal and which deemed government property.

If the government issues a subpoena for "all documents bearing classification markings." At best you can contest whether or not those documents are your property after the fact. It's highly doubtful that will work, but maybe you can try. What you can't do is deliver some documents, and a signed affidavit that's all of them. Something that later is shown a lie.

This doesn't just speak to him breaking the law, but his intent to do so.

 

[Couchpotato]

If you rob a bank you can't use "I'm a customer at that bank, therefor the money is mine as an excuse."

Believing something to be true although the law clearly states otherwise isn't a justification for breaking that law.

Im not saying it is.

The Presidential Records Act, proscribes in detail what records are deemed personal and which deemed government property.

If the government issues a subpoena for "all documents bearing classification markings." At best you can contest whether or not those documents are your property after the fact. It's highly doubtful that will work, but maybe you can try. What you can't do is deliver some documents, and a signed affidavit that's all of them. Something that later is shown a lie.

Did the Government do that though? I haven't seen the subpoena, have you? I frankly find it hard to believe that the lawyers working for Trump would sign a document saying they turned over all the documents the Government asked for if that was on the subpoena, but I could be wrong. They would have been better off quitting than signing that document, no?

This doesn't just speak to him breaking the law, but his intent to do so.

I honestly dont think Trump puts much thought into his intent, mostly because I dont think he puts a lot of thought into much of anything. I think he makes decisions based solely on gut feeling and intuition.

 

[forkup]

Im not saying it is.


Did the Government do that though? I haven't seen the subpoena, have you? I frankly find it hard to believe that the lawyers working for Trump would sign a document saying they turned over all the documents the Government asked for if that was on the subpoena, but I could be wrong. They would have been better off quitting than signing that document, no?


I honestly dont think Trump puts much thought into his intent, mostly because I dont think he puts a lot of thought into much of anything. I think he makes decisions based solely on gut feeling and intuition.

Yes I have seen both.

Justice Department Files 40-Page Opposition to Mar-a-Lago Special Master Request

The 40-page response outlined the government's position as to why a special master should not be appointed, though outlining limitations that should apply should the request be granted.

www.lawfareblog.com

Attachment C is the subpoena. Attachment E is the lawyers affidavit.

 

[Stann]

After it came out that the server existed, it was a thing and she was told to turn over the server as evidence yes, I do believe she deleted them which I think would be illegal as well. We won't even get into the fact that her use of the server for Government business in the first place is illegal for the same reasons everyone is so pissed off at Trump for taking even unclassified documents to Mar a Lag. Those emails don't belong to her they belong to the US government. I get why she did it. Her stint as Sec State was just a steppingstone for her to run for the Presidency and she didn't want anyone to FOIA her record at State. It's a smart move, albeit an illegal one, if you can get away with it. She didn't. But acting like she didn't break the law is just revisionist history for your team's sake.

BTW did she delete them before or after the Chinese and God only knows how many other foreign governments accessed that server?

Chinese company reportedly hacked Clinton's server, got copy of every email in real-time

A Chinese state-owned company reportedly hacked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server, then inserted code that forwarded them a copy of virtually every email she sent or received after that -- a revelation President Trump is demanding be investigated.

www.foxnews.com

Oh, and how many foreign governments broke into that room at Mar A Lago? Was it zero or less than that?

Tell me again how what Trump was a greater risk to national security than what Hilary did...

Im not a fan of Trump but what Hillary did was worse at least from an ultimate outcome perspective.

We don't know what Trump did or did not do with the documents he took. And there is some question about missing ones. I cannot make an assessment of the situation but you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Far worse is the precedent it has now set for abuse of our rights. This must be punished if it is to be stopped.

That sounds a bit like whining.

 

[Stann]

After it came out that the server existed, it was a thing and she was told to turn over the server as evidence yes, I do believe she deleted them which I think would be illegal as well. We won't even get into the fact that her use of the server for Government business in the first place is illegal for the same reasons everyone is so pissed off at Trump for taking even unclassified documents to Mar a Lag. Those emails don't belong to her they belong to the US government. I get why she did it. Her stint as Sec State was just a steppingstone for her to run for the Presidency and she didn't want anyone to FOIA her record at State. It's a smart move, albeit an illegal one, if you can get away with it. She didn't. But acting like she didn't break the law is just revisionist history for your team's sake.

BTW did she delete them before or after the Chinese and God only knows how many other foreign governments accessed that server?

Chinese company reportedly hacked Clinton's server, got copy of every email in real-time

A Chinese state-owned company reportedly hacked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server, then inserted code that forwarded them a copy of virtually every email she sent or received after that -- a revelation President Trump is demanding be investigated.

www.foxnews.com

Oh, and how many foreign governments broke into that room at Mar A Lago? Was it zero or less than that?

Tell me again how what Trump was a greater risk to national security than what Hilary did...

Im not a fan of Trump but what Hillary did was worse at least from an ultimate outcome perspective.

I went to fact check. No Chinese company ever got the emails that was all a lie that Trump started. He also made light of Russia's attack on the 2016 US elections in the same article. fact check.org FBI official pushes back on Trump-spread claim that Chinese firm..
August 29th 2018.

 

[Stann]

After it came out that the server existed, it was a thing and she was told to turn over the server as evidence yes, I do believe she deleted them which I think would be illegal as well. We won't even get into the fact that her use of the server for Government business in the first place is illegal for the same reasons everyone is so pissed off at Trump for taking even unclassified documents to Mar a Lag. Those emails don't belong to her they belong to the US government. I get why she did it. Her stint as Sec State was just a steppingstone for her to run for the Presidency and she didn't want anyone to FOIA her record at State. It's a smart move, albeit an illegal one, if you can get away with it. She didn't. But acting like she didn't break the law is just revisionist history for your team's sake.

BTW did she delete them before or after the Chinese and God only knows how many other foreign governments accessed that server?

Chinese company reportedly hacked Clinton's server, got copy of every email in real-time

A Chinese state-owned company reportedly hacked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server, then inserted code that forwarded them a copy of virtually every email she sent or received after that -- a revelation President Trump is demanding be investigated.

www.foxnews.com

Oh, and how many foreign governments broke into that room at Mar A Lago? Was it zero or less than that?

Tell me again how what Trump was a greater risk to national security than what Hilary did...

Im not a fan of Trump but what Hillary did was worse at least from an ultimate outcome perspective.

I also found that the Republicans in the Senate launching investigation into whether or not China hacked into Clinton servers and they didn't find any evidence of that. So I think you're beating a dead horse. CNN.com Senate investigators find no evidence China hacked Clinton server. August 19th 2019. Also during Trump's administration. So he had them investigate yet another false allegation.

 

[Couchpotato]

I also found that the Republicans in the Senate launching investigation into whether or not China hacked into Clinton servers and they didn't find any evidence of that. So I think you're beating a dead horse. CNN.com Senate investigators find no evidence China hacked Clinton server. August 19th 2019. Also during Trump's administration. So he had them investigate yet another false allegation.

Um

Clinton server faced hacking from China, South Korea and Germany

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee found evidence of attempted intrusions into Clinton's server in 2013 and 2014.

www.politico.com

"Hillary Clinton’s private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state — including more than 400 now considered classified — was the subject of hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany after she stepped down in 2013, according to Congressional investigators."

"The contractor, SECNAP Network Security, identified the attacks, but according to internal emails cited and briefly quoted in the Johnson letter, Clinton’s sever may have lacked a threat-detection program for three months, Johnson says."

"

“We really really need to do this,” the internal Aug. 19, 2013 email reads. “We are left in a bad state… We want to add in this extra security. We are paying for it and no[t] using the security.”

Johnson blasted the time gap.

“This gap raises questions about the vulnerability of Secretary Clinton’s private server during the multi-month period that the CloudJacket devise and management service was unable to monitor the network,” the Johnson letter reads.

SECNAP notified Platte River of the attempted attacks from China in February 2014, Korea in March of that year and Germany in June of that year, according to footnotes in the letter.

The story could undermine another part of Clinton’s public response to the email controversy. She has repeatedly said there’s no indication that her server was hacked."

And the most damning part of this IMO

"In 2011, after Google revealed a wave of hacking attacks against accounts belonging to senior U.S. officials and human rights activists, Clinton’s State Department warned employees to avoid using personal email accounts for official business. However, she continued to exclusively use a private account and server for her work."

But to the point. What do you feel is more vulnerable? A locked (even an unlocked room) room inside a former President's private residence or an unsecure email server, that's connected to the internet? Seriously. What do you think it would be harder to gain access to. President Obama's storage closet in his house on Martha's Vineyard or HRC's email server when it was up and running?

 

[Stann]

Um

Clinton server faced hacking from China, South Korea and Germany

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee found evidence of attempted intrusions into Clinton's server in 2013 and 2014.

www.politico.com

"Hillary Clinton’s private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state — including more than 400 now considered classified — was the subject of hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany after she stepped down in 2013, according to Congressional investigators."

"The contractor, SECNAP Network Security, identified the attacks, but according to internal emails cited and briefly quoted in the Johnson letter, Clinton’s sever may have lacked a threat-detection program for three months, Johnson says."

"

“We really really need to do this,” the internal Aug. 19, 2013 email reads. “We are left in a bad state… We want to add in this extra security. We are paying for it and no[t] using the security.”

Johnson blasted the time gap.

“This gap raises questions about the vulnerability of Secretary Clinton’s private server during the multi-month period that the CloudJacket devise and management service was unable to monitor the network,” the Johnson letter reads.

SECNAP notified Platte River of the attempted attacks from China in February 2014, Korea in March of that year and Germany in June of that year, according to footnotes in the letter.

The story could undermine another part of Clinton’s public response to the email controversy. She has repeatedly said there’s no indication that her server was hacked."

And the most damning part of this IMO

"In 2011, after Google revealed a wave of hacking attacks against accounts belonging to senior U.S. officials and human rights activists, Clinton’s State Department warned employees to avoid using personal email accounts for official business. However, she continued to exclusively use a private account and server for her work."

But to the point. What do you feel is more vulnerable? A locked (even an unlocked room) room inside a former President's private residence or an unsecure email server, that's connected to the internet? Seriously. What do you think it would be harder to gain access to. President Obama's storage closet in his house on Martha's Vineyard or HRC's email server when it was up and running?

There are lots of lies out there. You have to be careful what you believe, especially if it fits your agenda. Fact check is independent organization that is neither right nor left they just report the facts. So Hillary was investigated twice and was not charged with anything. Double jeopardy might apply to her by now, I remember those investigations went on and on over the same issue. At least with trump he keeps committing new questionable Acts so every investigation is legitimate, and the fact that their purposeful makes it even more so.

 

[The Original Tree]

And they hide it.....

The abuse of power by Biden is massive but it got them a win in the election...

Are we Americans going to allow this massive abuse of power to go undealt with?


We Were Right: WaPo Quietly Admits the Truth About Trump's Documents After the Election (ijr.com)


So, treason is now acceptable if you are a democrat...
.

It was nothing but Biden's Nazi Gestapo trying to generate headlines before the midterms.
Biden and Garland should be removed from office over this.

 

[Couchpotato]

We don't know what Trump did or did not do with the documents he took. And there is some question about missing ones. I cannot make an assessment of the situation but you're entitled to your opinion.

They didnt even know what documents he took, so how could they know if some are missing?

 

[Couchpotato]

There are lots of lies out there. You have to be careful what you believe, especially if it fits your agenda. Fact check is independent organization that is neither right nor left they just report the facts. So Hillary was investigated twice and was not charged with anything. Double jeopardy might apply to her by now, I remember those investigations went on and on over the same issue. At least with trump he keeps committing new questionable Acts so every investigation is legitimate, and the fact that their purposeful makes it even more so.

So you believe the Senate, Politico, the AP and this security company are all lying about what happened with HRC's email server?

Politico Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of Politico. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

Associated Press Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of Associated Press. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

That seems kind of unlikely doesnt it?

There's no jeopardy attached to an investigation. I can investigate you 100 million times for the same crime. I cant try you for it more than once.

 

[forkup]

So you believe the Senate, Politico, the AP and this security company are all lying about what happened with HRC's email server?

Politico Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of Politico. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

Associated Press Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of Associated Press. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

That seems kind of unlikely doesnt it?

There's no jeopardy attached to an investigation. I can investigate you 100 million times for the same crime. I cant try you for it more than once.

I'll interject. No, I personally don't doubt what happened to her server.

What I personally doubt is whether or not what happened was done purposefully with the intention of keeping e-mails out of the hands of investigators.

This is the same doubt that was expressed at the time by Comey. And the same doubt that makes establishing the beyond reasonable doubt standard in order to actually win a conviction unlikely.

It is also one of the many differences in both cases. Since claiming that Trump didn't intend to shield the documents from investigation is less likely considering the actual false statements being made by his lawyers.

 

[Couchpotato]

I'll interject. No, I personally don't doubt what happened to her server.

What I personally doubt is whether or not what happened was done purposefully with the intention of keeping e-mails out of the hands of investigators.

This is the same doubt that was expressed at the time by Comey. And the same doubt that makes establishing the beyond reasonable doubt standard in order to actually win a conviction unlikely.

It is also one of the many differences in both cases. Since claiming that Trump didn't intend to shield the documents from investigation is less likely considering the actual false statements being made by his lawyers.

Investigators? I have no idea. But I do believe she intentionally used a private email server so that her record at State wouldn't be FOIAable (if such a word exists) because she always intended to run for President in 2016. HRC is many things but one of them isnt dumb. She's a very calculated politician and knows it was only to her advantage if people were not able to FOIA her record while she was Sec State.

 

[Couchpotato]

I'll interject. No, I personally don't doubt what happened to her server.

What I personally doubt is whether or not what happened was done purposefully with the intention of keeping e-mails out of the hands of investigators.

This is the same doubt that was expressed at the time by Comey. And the same doubt that makes establishing the beyond reasonable doubt standard in order to actually win a conviction unlikely.

It is also one of the many differences in both cases. Since claiming that Trump didn't intend to shield the documents from investigation is less likely considering the actual false statements being made by his lawyers.

I find it interesting that the people who hate Trump (or many of them anyway) believe he's the most calculating, evil, manipulative villain on the planet at the same time they believe he's narcissistic moron, who never thinks and just reacts and say/does whatever comes to mind. He cant be both.

 

[forkup]

Investigators? I have no idea. But I do believe she intentionally used a private email server so that her record at State wouldn't be FOIAable (if such a word exists) because she always intended to run for President in 2016. HRC is many things but one of them isnt dumb. She's a very calculated politician and knows it was only to her advantage if people were not able to FOIA her record while she was Sec State.

You are free to believe anything. For the purpose of the conversation, what is likely actionable by the DOJ seems simply more relevant.

After all that's the whole point of using whataboutisms. Establishing that the other side did something in order to excuse your own behaviour. Fallacious as that argument is actually.

 

[forkup]

I find it interesting that the people who hate Trump (or many of them anyway) believe he's the most calculating, evil, manipulative villain on the planet at the same time they believe he's narcissistic moron, who never thinks and just reacts and say/does whatever comes to mind. He cant be both.

I'm of the personal opinion he's a moron. That doesn't mean he's incapable of doing something illegal on purpose wich is my point.

 

[Couchpotato]

You are free to believe anything. For the purpose of the conversation, what is likely actionable by the DOJ seems simply more relevant.

After all that's the whole point of using whataboutisms. Establishing that the other side did something in order to excuse your own behaviour. Fallacious as that argument is actually.

What other reason could she possibly have had? It's not like she didn't set up that email when she became Sec State or that she didn't have a State Dept email on NIPR, SIPR, and TS networks. Other than keeping her emails from the prying eyes of the US electorate what possible reason could she have had for setting up her own email server, precisely when she became Sec State? And just because the Justice Department chose not to prosecute doesnt mean laws werent broken.