No Threats to National Security found in Trump Documents.

[forkup]

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.

A simple routine maintenance operation done by an outside contractor, as was done before. Which was what the explanation was. In other words an honest mistake.

 

[Couchpotato]

A simple routine maintenance operation done by an outside contractor, as was done before. Which was what the explanation was.

HUH? routine maintenance operation is why she set up a private email server at the exact same time she became Sec State and used it vice her government issued emails as proscribed by law?

 

[forkup]

HUH? routine maintenance operation is why she set up a private email server at the exact same time she became Sec State and used it vice her government issued emails as proscribed by law?

No a routine maintenance operation was what caused parts of her emails to be wiped. Why she had the server in the first place? Convenience was the explanation. As it was to Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice before her, and quite a few government officials after her.

 

[Couchpotato]

No a routine maintenance operation was what caused parts of her emails to be wiped. Why she had the server in the first place? Convenience was the explanation. As it was to Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice before her, and quite a few government officials after her.

It's more convenient to set up a new server and email than just use the one provided to you by the State Dept? Really you really believe that's the reason and not because she didnt want the emails to be in the record and searchable? Really?

 

[forkup]

It's more convenient to set up a new server and email than just use the one provided to you by the State Dept? Really you really believe that's the reason and not because she didnt want the emails to be in the record and searchable? Really?

No, it's more convenient to use one email address for both personal and official use. And yes I do believe that because I have both a personal and work-related email address and when I work from home it's a little inconvenient to log out and log back in depending on my purpose.

And even if I didn't believe it. The question is, when you are trying to establish intent in order to prosecute a crime, is whether or not the explanation is sufficient to establish reasonable doubt.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have both a personal and work-related email address and when I work from home it's a little inconvenient to log out and log back in depending on my purpose.

[OFF TOPIC]

Pro Tip...

Try something like Mozilla Thunderbird or MS Outlook for regular email. That way you can have multiple accounts open in the same application by using Client Software instead of a Web Interface. Works great with IMAP email accounts.

I used to use Thunderbird, but I have very high email traffic with lots of attachments so there were issues where I would need to archive old years. I believe it was linked to the size of the email files on the local machine. Haven't run into it yet with MS Outlook.

I currently run 3 different work accounts and 2 personal email all from the same open application.

NOTE: I hate web interfaces for email and much prefer client software, so take that into account.

WW

[/OFF TOPIC]

 

[Couchpotato]

No, it's more convenient to use one email address for both personal and official use. And yes I do believe that because I have both a personal and work-related email address and when I work from home it's a little inconvenient to log out and log back in depending on my purpose.

And even if I didn't believe it. The question is, when you are trying to establish intent in order to prosecute a crime, is whether or not the explanation is sufficient to establish reasonable doubt.

She was the Secretary of State. Whatever device and setup she needed to make it convenient for her to have 2 emails would have been done. Also, you don't get to circumvent US law because it's inconvenient.

 

[beagle9]

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.

If the document's are opened up after being obtained for review, then they need to be assessed by the people's representatives in order to know whether or not their classifications were correct, and to assess if they posed a threat, otherwise if somehow they ended up in the wrong hand's.

 

[forkup]

She was the Secretary of State. Whatever device and setup she needed to make it convenient for her to have 2 emails would have been done. Also, you don't get to circumvent US law because it's inconvenient.

Hold on a little bit. Clinton did not "circumvent US law." What she did was not adhere to her Department's policy regarding email security. Which is different.

Having said that, doing so risks national security. As such any and all investigations she got as a result are completely appropriate. I think that now. I thought that then. To the point I'm on the record on this board supporting Comey's decision to reopen the investigation a few weeks before the election knowing full well it would damage her chances.

The question is here, yet again. Was what she did not just criminal, but could it be reasonably be prosecuted? Because you, and a lot of Republicans are trying to use a fallacious " appeal to hypocrisy" as a way to excuse Trump's behaviour.

The answer here is no. Said both the DOJ and me in the case of Clinton. For the reasons I'm trying to explain. And I suspect yes in the case of Trump. Since his behaviour is more egressious, and more critically, showing intent is much easier to prove in this case.

 

[forkup]

If the document's are opened up after being obtained for review, then they need to be assessed by the people's representatives in order to know whether or not their classifications were correct, and to assess if they posed a threat, otherwise if somehow they ended up in the wrong hand's.

I think you messed up that last sentence?

I will respond to the part I do understand.

The house of representatives doesn't rule on classification. You should understand this since according to the guy you support that authority lies with a president, and can be done by simply thinking about it.

 

[Couchpotato]

Hold on a little bit. Clinton did not "circumvent US law." What she did was not adhere to her Department's policy regarding email security. Which is different.

You are right circumvent isn’t the right word. She broke the law.

18 U.S.C. § 1924—is for Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents or Materials

FOIA

NARA

Federal Record Act

It's arguable she violated the ‘gross negligence’ under the Espionage Act for failure to keep national defense information safe. 18 U.S.C. § 793 Subsection F

Whether or not she should have been prosecuted under those statutes is debatable but that she violated them really isn't.

Having said that, doing so risks national security. As such any and all investigations she got as a result are completely appropriate. I think that now. I thought that then. To the point I'm on the record on this board supporting Comey's decision to reopen the investigation a few weeks before the election knowing full well it would damage her chances.


The question is here, yet again. Was what she did not just criminal, but could it be reasonably be prosecuted? Because you, and a lot of Republicans are trying to use a fallacious " appeal to hypocrisy" as a way to excuse Trump's behaviour.

I havent used HRC violation of those laws as some excuse for what Trump did, but I have pointed out how the law is being applied differently depending on who's violating it.

The answer here is no. Said both the DOJ and me in the case of Clinton. For the reasons I'm trying to explain. And I suspect yes in the case of Trump. Since his behaviour is more egressious, and more critically, showing intent is much easier to prove in this case.

If the answers are different, it's because of the individual who broke said laws not because of the egregiousness. Hillary's violation of the law put the information she illegally stored on her server at much greater risk than Trump did in whatever room he had it in Mar A Lago.

I don't believe either of them did what they did for some nefarious reason. Trump out of arrogance/narcissism , Clinton for political gain. I don't see why Trump's reasoning is worse than Clinton's if anything it's the opposite.

 

[beautress]

Once the campaign for president has started, they can just hold off, wait and see if he gets the nomination, see how he does in the debates, and if he is ahead in the polls, make some sort of press conference on the whole thing, without actually moving to indict, and that would be enough to sink his campaign.

Remember the affect of Comey re-opening his probe into Hillary with the warrant on Weiner's laptop? All they need to do, is just ignore intel on a Trump associate's device till the time is right? And then? SPRING THAT TRAP!

Unread October​

The FBI ignored Anthony Weiner’s laptop. That may have cost Hillary Clinton the election.​

The FBI Ignored Anthony Weiner’s Laptop. That May Have Cost Hillary Clinton the Election.

The laptop search “was not viewed as a mission-critical activity,” officials said.

slate.com

The DoJ doesn't even need to lift a finger against Trump to ruin him at this point.

I hate to tell you this, but Hillary Clinton cost herself the election years before she ran when she would not tell the truth to a grand jury. Instead, she took the low road of pretense about her failure to remember the details of her involvement. Many now know her as Hillary "I forget" Clinton. It smacked of criminality. Older voters disliked her arrogance. And they disliked it a lot.

 

[beautress]

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...
.

Thank you for calling this to the attention of USMBoards, Billy_Bob. The more President Trump gets hassled, the more the end truth is that he was telling the truth all along, and his adversaries were using their lies to gain power from the polls. Someday, the Democrats are going to call "wolf" one too many times, and the American people will never believe them again. I think the best American people appreciate the truth, and the Republicans are committed to running the House fairly and in accordance with verifiable truth. People are weary of hearing lies that evaporate after expensive inquiries are launched. May God bless President Trump for declassifying documents that would never harm America in any way because he and his staff found no threat to national security in spite of that woman Congress woman Maxine Waters who sicked the dogs on Trump and his staff. Any smirks of laughter of that horrible encouragement of stalking may now show how indecent the Democrats became in the power grabs their leaders took, which should wipe that rotten smile off guilty faces. Stalking is a horrible crime whether it is taboo sexual or taboo political.