 |
| Silverfiddle Rant! |
Today we compare the cases of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I know, the press has already "debunked" and "fact checked" everything, but please hear me out, and then tell us what you think.
Which action puts our nation's secrets in more jeopardy of being stolen by our adversaries?
1) Taking classified paper documents and locking them in a private home?
or
2) Flagrantly air-gapping classified information from secure systems to unclassified ones, and routinely transmitting classified information over unsecure e-mail, and storing communications including Confidential, Secret and Top Secret information on an unprotected server connected to the internet, where US government secrets are literally exposed to any hacker anywhere in the world?
Here are the facts from the FBI investigation of Hillary and her staff:
"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 ..." (RCP - Adriana Cohen)
Her only defense is that Comey called the sloppy and lazy practices of her and her staff "extremely careless" but not criminal. An opinion that JustUs Minister Loretta Lynch eagerly gobbled up to push the whole affair down the memory hole and allow Hillary to proceed to her coronation.
Career friendlies at the State Department also investigated and concluded that Hillary and her staff meant no harm, they just innocently spilled classified information hundreds of times, destroyed evidence and wiped a hard drive. Anyone could have made those mistakes...
Hillary got a sweeheart deal from the syndicate because she's a made man. FBI investigators allowed Clinton bagman Cheryl Mills and other co-conspirators to sit in on the "interviews," and they immunized the low level IT technician who did the dirty work. Whatever happened to the FBI squeezing lower lever people and making them squeal, and working their way up the chain to the Big Guy?
Our government and the press operate on a flagrant double-standard. I don't understand why everyone does not see it, or how anyone can defend it.
What say you?
What say you?
ReplyDeleteYou're right ... corruption in its worst form. I understand how this happens, I just don't understand why the American people put up with it.
Neither one is good, but why the FBI would forgive one and SWAT the other is a question that the FBI still owes an answer for.
ReplyDeleteVDH gives it a shot.
DeleteYeah FJ, Hillary is privileged and Trump is the victim.
DeleteGulp!
Isonomia is just a "bridge too far", right Ronnie?
DeleteHillary Clinton was exonerated by Trump's Justice Department after cooperating with their subpoenas?
DeleteShe was exonerated under Trump's State department. The Justice department exoneration was done by Comey in a very Al Hague move, during Obama.
DeleteOn Hillary's cooperation on subpoenas...
DeleteWe probably need someone with the security clearances and law degrees to serve as a "special master" to look over the documents Trump stole from the White House to determine sentencing recommendations during the verdict phase. I recommend Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Kamala Harris come forward to serve as a "special master" and clear up just how many years in prison Trump is looking at.
DeleteThe assigned special master is a FISA Court judge.
DeleteJoe, thanks for the info. That means he is well versed in rubber stamping whatever is put before him by the establishment
DeleteIndeed. He signed the Carter Page warrant.
Delete:P
DeleteI can hardly wait for the WaPo and NYT to starting "dirtying up" Judge Dearie in drip-drip-drip IC leak fashion....
DeleteThe "October surprise" is approaching and so is the big reveal... of the "criminal conspiracy" to "overthrow the government" on Jan 6.
DeleteThe evil doers... "Republicans".... now "Go vote!"
DeleteWe wouldn't want any nasty FACTS being uncovered that might impact how you vote in Nov. based upon anything other than our latest lurid accusations!
DeleteLooks like the Eleventh Circuit has taken Dearie off the hot seat, at least as far as the Classified Docs are concerned. I hope Trump's got copies hidden away somewhere that he can publish on Truth Social the minute Durham files his final report.
Delete...Pentagon papers style.
DeleteThought criminal, constitutional insurgent, and Ronald Ward:
ReplyDeletePlease try logging in and commenting again with your Google accounts.
We would like to tighten comments back down to Google accounts only to cut down on the garbage comments.
You might have to enable/disable the 3rd party cookie blocking option for you browser for this site a few times.
DeleteTrying different VPN settings, cookie blocking options, and browsers. Google Blogger just doesn't like people with multiple Google accounts.
DeleteTest... I am logged into the correct Google account, but the option to post with it is greyed out...
DeleteMayber Farmer can give us some tips. He should be the master of multiple accounts.
DeleteI keep it simple:
I use one browser for my real business, and a different one dedicated to Kurt Silverfiddle.
I always log into my Google accounts in YouTube (not Blogger) but have to disable the 3rd party cookie blocking option in my browser on Blogger sites not letting me post.
DeleteTrying to log into Google via Blogger no longer works for me.
DeleteLet's see the documents that were in the empty folders before we can make the determination with Trump. I'm betting he's dirtier than Hillary. Plus, HE changed the law requiring 5 years in prison.
ReplyDeleteI agree we need more information. I've made my view very clear: they both broke the law
DeleteExcept that Presidents can't change law, only congress can and did in S.139 of the 115th Congress which interestingly enough was the FISA amendments reauthorization act of 2017, a bill introduced and sponsored by Sen Orin Hatch R-Utah and given the roll call votes in both houses was probably veto proof although 2 Senators and 15 congressmen appear to have been absent for the vote.
DeleteWe can't let the nations secrets get stolen by our adversaries, unless of course, we can rapidly discredit them...
ReplyDeleteAt least Hans Blix wasn't a paedo, eh beamish?
Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.[12][13]
Blix said he suspected his home and office were bugged by the United States, while he led teams searching for Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction.[14] Although these suspicions were never directly substantiated, evidence of a request for bugging of UN security council representatives around the time the US was seeking approval from the council came to light after a British government translator leaked a document "allegedly from an American National Security Agency" requesting that British intelligence put wiretaps on delegates to the UN security council.
Since Hillary didn't use the info she had against us, and immediately wiped her server, she gets a pass. Since DJT still has documents that would discredit us (the IC), he must be destroyed...
It's not so much about national security or stolen secrets as "making the IC look bad". Pilate washes his hands.
Where does the CIA's Kompromat come from?
DeleteThe International Society for the Study of Character Assassination
Research Lab for Character Assassination and Reputation Politics (CARP)
...or In-House?
Good point farmer. Reminds me of when the IC leaked to wapo that Trump was endangering the life of a human asset who was in Putin's inner circle.
DeleteIf that were really true, why would they leak it to the press and endanger that person's life?
If people would just apply a little simple logic, they would see that none of this makes any sense.
It's not about reporting truth or endangering lives. It's about "control". And right now, the IC is "Control".
DeleteAnything less would be pure Kaos.
DeleteAt least Hans Blix wasn't a paedo, eh beamish?
DeleteTo my knowledge Blix never appeared on the Howard Stern Show to gush about his sexual attractions to his daughter. I don't even know if he has a daughter.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if intelligence services monitored their sources of information.
This may shock you, but astronomers often use telescopes.
They likely have burn files on all their sources.
DeleteWell, good if they do. The moment an intelligence agency trusts anybody with anything they've compromised themselves. Some 74 million people in America conspired to attempt to continue Donald Trump's access to classified data. These all need to be rounded up, waterboarded with kerosene, and vetted for future threats to national security. Not all of them wear red MAGA hats, so they may need to be duped into self-identifying with a nation-wide toothbrushing mandate.
DeleteWaterboarding 74 million Americans for threatening to expose the illegal practices, sources, methods and incompetency of 1 million IC bureaucrats doesn't sound very utilitarian. Why not waterboard 1 million IC bureaucrats and thereby protect 74 million American citizens instead?
DeleteWho's "security" requires the greatest protection?
Delete:P
DeleteShow me the "narrative" and I'll show you the "criminals needing prosecution".
DeleteMeh. If Republicans weren't tired of winning they'd run viable candidates.
DeleteRemember when Charles Manson got out of murder charges by ranting in court about the Vietnam War?
Me neither.
After watching the fumbling fools in the GOP house and Senate for the first two years of Trump's presidency, when they had the house in the Senate, I'm wondering, what is the point of GOP winning?
DeleteMitch doesn't even want to win, this year. "What's the point?" He'll get more accomplished through his Democrat UniParty partners.
Delete"Which action puts our nation's secrets in more jeopardy of being stolen by our adversaries?
ReplyDeleteI have to question the obviously bias framing of the options you gave us, you know, Trump only took classified paper documents which for some unknown reason needed to be locked in a private home whereas Hillary had secrets and top secrets and further blather. That ain't how it works.
Yes, Clinton, a government official was sloppy with classified documents, something that had become somewhat a norm as cell phone use became more popular.
And aside from multiple Trump, as a private citizen, allegedly stole boxes and boxes of classified documents and took to his personal home.
Clinton was compliant and cooperative. From the ABC factcheck you linked, investigators were able to get her phone and data without a warrant.
Trump, as a private citizen, refused to return the documents and ignored subpoenas.
It's interesting that you admit the factcheckers yet turn to a spinmeister such as Adriana Cohen to somehow disqualify them, as if when she said it differently, facts don't really matter.
I'd say most anyone of reasonable intellect knows there's no comparison at all. I'd also say the right wing propaganda machine, considering Trump is in deep doo-doo, desperately needs something to distract. Enter boogieman Hillary.
With Hillary, it wasn't physical documents. It was cutting and pasting classified information into an unclassified system connected to the internet, which made that information extremely vulnerable, especially since it is a given foreign adversaries are always spying on unclassified communications of government officials.
DeleteCohen provided direct quotes from the FBI.
Smashing cell phones and hard drives, and destroying server information with bleach bit is not cooperative.
She cooperated finally when she was trapped, and then she was given kid glove treatment, and none of her bagmen or toadies were squeezed with threats of prosecution.
So, in summary, you are wrong.
and none of this exonerates or excuses Trump.
DeleteFinally, can you appreciate I provide links not just supporting my case, but also opposing it.
DeleteRead those links good. Hillary was exonerated because the syndicate said so.
If you think I have mischaracterized what Hillary and her team did, point out where. My source is the FBI.
What is yours?
You don't think Trump has been treated with kid gloves? There needs to be an investigation into why Trump still has teeth after being caught in possession of classified materials he denied having and resisted court orders to surrender. Are the rifle butts we equip FBI agents not strong enough to break a spy's jaw when swung properly? Did someone in the FBI neglect to give agents tactical warrant service training? Why wasn't Mar-a-Lago sealed as a crime scene and Trump taken into custody and held without bail as a known flight risk?
DeleteHillary Clinton was investigated far more throughout than Trump ever has been, as the subject of a 25 year long witch hunt. Plenty of time to even accidentally come up with something criminal, even a so-called "process crime" to charge her with. But, nothing. Tell us something about Hillary Clinton that the FBI doesn't already know about and hasn't already investigated. Jesus there's more evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was furtively retaining the capacity to mass produce chemical weapons than all the evidence of Hillary Clinton's alleged crimes combined. No matter how hard you swing, you're not going to hit a piñata that isn't there. At some point, Pancho Villa has to take Don Quixote's lance away before he hurts himself.
Trump, on the other hand, has a more obvious, concrete, and serious display of criminal activity to answer for. The FBI didn't just suspect he was illegally retaining government property in his home, they went up in his house and got it. Trump even went the extra step of assisting prosecutors by trying to deny committing crimes he hasn't even been accused of. Trump has the right to remain silent, but the inability to do so. Trump could have just returned the government's property, including the information needed by his Russian handlers to capture and kill our intelligence sources and methods abroad, and we can all go back to wondering if Tom Brady has leukemia or just needs to eat a sandwich.
Quarter-century witch hunt to gotcha Hillary Clinton turning up nothing vs. opening Donald Trump's desk drawer and finding stolen government property.
Either one, both, or neither are guilty of crimes. One of them is trying to evidence of their crime thrown out of court. QED.
I would have to agree with SF, physical documents in an ex-president's residence undoubtedly have greater security than an unclassified email server, they certainly have less risk exposure. Both are guilty, yet both are probably unconvictable as original classification authorities. Trumps defense is stronger as he is the ultimate OCA from which all agency head powers derive. Clinton had the authority to declassify only state department documents while Trump had the authority to declassify anything as all the agency heads work for him. Mind you, I am not arguing right or wrong morally or ethically, I'm arguing points of law.
DeleteBoth cases are political theatrics, smoke and mirrors that Penn and Teller would be proud of. The preeminent qualifier for public office is mastery of the art of distraction. Unfortunately, the people who are good at politics aren't necessarily the people you want running your government.
I should add that agency heads and OCAs don't declassify anything themselves they only express intent, their staffs do all the work, i.e., dot the i's cross the t's and file all the paperwork. The only thing prosecutable in my opinion is low hanging fruit. I'm still looking for that case of an Original Classification Authority who was convicted of mishandling classified information that they themselves were the classification authority for... don't think it ever happened, don't think it ever will.
DeleteLaws written by Congress don't apply to the President, plain and simple. Constitutional separation of powers.
DeleteThere are no criminal penalties in the Presidential records act because otherwise the law would be Unconstitutional. They can seize all the records they want, but can't charge Trump with a crime, or the law would be void.
DeleteArticle I, Section 3, Clause 7:
DeleteJudgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Except that in the case of retention and removal of classified documents, the law as written does not apply to a former president. I quoted the law once before in a previous thread here and am too lazy to go find it.
Deleteokay, maybe not that lazy...
DeleteAny attempt to impose criminal liability on a President or former President that involves his actions with respect to documents marked classified would implicate grave constitutional separation-of-powers issues. Beyond that, the primary criminal statute that governs the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material does not apply to the President. That statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.18U.S.C.§1924(a). An element of this offense, which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, is that the accused is an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States. The President is none of these. See Free Enter. Fundv Pub. Co Acct. OversightBd.,561U.S. 477,497-98(2010) (citing U.S. Const., Art.II,§2cl. 2) ( The people do not vote for the 'Officers of the United States. ');see also Melcherv Fed Open Mkt. Comm.,644 F. Supp.510, 518-19 (D.D.C. 1986),aff d,836 F.2d561(D.C. Cir. 1987) ( [a]n officer of the United States can only be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or by a court of law, or the head of a department. A person who does not derive his position from one of these sources is not an officer of the United States in the sense of the Constitution. ). Thus, the statute does not apply to acts by a President. Case 9:22-mj-08332-BER Document 102-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2022 Page 35 of38
The president has broken no laws.
DeleteYeah, except what you quoted is not law, it is a response to the FBI affidavit filed by Trumps attorney. In other words, it is an opinion. Anyway, my comment was in response to "Laws written by Congress don't apply to the President" and not an adjudication of applicability, guilt, or innocence.
DeleteYou know of cases of presidents that have been tried under this law? Of course it's an opinion. There is no case law.
DeleteThe applicable cases were cited in the "opinion".
Delete...and this is simply a statement of law...
DeleteArticle I, Section 9, paragraph 3, of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the enactment of bills of attainder, stating, “No Bill of Attainder or ex-post facto Law will be passed.”
The warrant was issued under the Espionage Act. It's the only "law" that applies to the president. So "charge him" under THAT or get off the pot.
DeleteThe warrant said the agents would be searching for material as they investigated potential violations of the Espionage Act, which outlaws the unauthorized retention of defense-related information that could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary — a standard that was written by Congress before the creation of the modern classification system.
DeleteAll this talk of "Presidential Records" and "archivist concerns" have no bearing in this case, nor do "classification markings". You'll need to prove that the material was harmful, and that the president INTENDED to do harm.
Delete...that he was an active agent for a foreign power.
Deleteand btw - revealing unconstitutional and illegal "sources and methods" of the IC and law enforcement isn't considered a "harm to the US's national security".
DeleteSF, the whataboutism of Bleachbit and a hammer doesn’t hunt. Let’s forget for a moment of the time line of deleted emails and that this was something Trump bellowed out, Fox News followed up and played nonstop, and the propaganda down spewers obliged on cue and for the sake of argument, the accusation is true.
DeleteIf this but-look-over-there acid cleaning occurred, worst it could be is evidence tampering to cover her ass and having nothing to do with your question of which action puts our secrets in jeopardy. It’s not destroying or stealing actual classified documents but rather deleting her copies. It would merely be her, as a government official, attempt to sweep her sloppy work under a rug whereas Trump, a private citizen, actually stole government classified documents and refused to give them back.
Does the word “intent” mean anything? Considering the circumstances of each case, Hillary’s actions would be more of a “what in the hell do you think you’re doing and stop it”. In Trump’s case, Mar-a-Lago should be federally impounded and he at the very lenient minimum should be wearing an ankle bracelet.
And speaking of intent, does the fact that Donald Goddamn Trump, a guy with 4 years of exposure to top secrets and well knows who would do anything to get them, a serial liar, life long con man, a guy already caught in shenanigans of bribing foreign countries, a friend and suck up to foreign adversaries, a guy who’d burn the country and the world to the ground for his advantage, a power hungry egomaniac, and a guy who’s proven over and over and over to have no regard to norms or the rule of law, happen to answer your question of which action puts our nation’s secrets in jeopardy?
And why nothing on Nicki Haley and several other Trump email abusers?
...and so you started by complaining about "whataboutism" and ended in "whataboutism". LOL!
DeleteLogical consistency isn't your strong suit, is it Ronnie?
DeleteI started out with whataboutism and ended with pointing out the hypocrisy of the look-over-there people.
Delete...by saying, "Look over there" BWAH!
Deleteand btw - revealing unconstitutional and illegal "sources and methods" of the IC and law enforcement isn't considered a "harm to the US's national security".
DeleteNor is ruling a drone strike to be an unfortunate gas main explosion.
Ronald doesn't do logic well. Material facts of someone destroying information is not what about isn't. Normal people call those facts.
DeleteI will Grant Ronald one thing, intent is important. I do not think Hillary had criminal intent when she purposely mishandled classified information. The inconvenient fact about this instance though, is, the federal law that governs mishandling of classified information does not make allowances for whether someone had criminal intent or not.
Nor is ruling a drone strike to be an unfortunate gas main explosion.
DeleteThen surely these news articles about "gas main explosions" shouldn't be showing up on "Blue Check" news sites... or should they?
What would the Misinformation Governance Board say?
DeleteSF, do you think Trump had or has criminal intent?
DeleteI think that Trump's intent is to expose the CRIMINAL and ILLEGAL surveillance activity being conducted BY the FBI/CIA. He HAD the evidence, and THEY raided Mar-a-Lago and confiscated it.
Delete...cuz it's wrapped in a blanket of "Top SECRET".
DeleteThe Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) has become the most CORRUPT organization in the history of Planet Earth.... so no, a House or Senate investigation is NOT going to cut it. Too many millions of $ are being funneled into Senatorial Campaign and private foundation accounts.
DeleteThis 4th branch of government, the Intelligence Community (IC), must be dismantled.
DeleteThe president has broken no laws.
DeleteTrump is not the President.
Ronald: What Joe said.
DeleteIn common parlance of yesteryear, Trump is fighting city hall.
Then surely these news articles about "gas main explosions" shouldn't be showing up on "Blue Check" news sites... or should they?
DeleteThis hit dropped off the Russian propaganda top 40.
Kinda hard to decide which part of the story is more absurd, the CIA allegedly using a Predator drones to bomb houses in Indianapolis, or the Russians giving sources and methods level Intel on what they know of CIA drone operations to some nobody in a trailer park.
Your right, beamish. The authorities wouldn't use a predator drone inside the US... they'd use helicopters.
Delete...and wouldn't deny it.
Deleteyou can't handle the truth
Delete...neither can the 40+ US citizens still sitting in DC jails who are guilty of touring the Capitol on Jan 6.
Delete:P
Delete...all to justify the Democrats upcoming "October Surprise" before the election.
DeleteGot the "Master's Discourse"?
DeleteDiscourse Don Giovanni Parsifal Characteristics
DeleteMaster Don Ottavio Amfortas inauthentic, inconsistent
University Leporello Klingsor inauthentic, consistent
Hysteric Donna Elvira Kundry authentic, inconsistent
Analyst Donna Anna Parsifal authentic, consistent
Trump’s fighting city hall?
DeleteWhat the hell are you talking about? He lost the election. He’s no longer privy to those tools anymore. He doesn’t get to walk away with nuclear codes and such or who knows what because you and Joe and his glazed over basket think his crusade is worthy.
The guy stole classified documents that didn’t belong to him and refused to give them back. The feds went and took them back.
Is there anything this Mango God could do that you and Joe wouldn’t be there to suck Trump butt?
Ronald, look dummy. I have said multiple times that it definitely appears Trump broke the law. This is a gross mishandling of classified information. This is on par with Hillary carelessly and sloppily mishandling classified information
DeleteRonnie likes an unaccountable Intelligence operation ignoring the Constitution and running the country from the shadows.
DeleteI guess we still need the pretense of presidents and elections to ensure that the DCI doesn't catch any heat when he screws up.
Delete*Comments above for "truth handlers" only.
Delete...and we've got built in scapegoats to compromise with a drip-drip-drip of leaks to the press/public when that happens.
DeleteSilver, I asked you a simple question of if Trump had criminal intentions.
DeleteJoe chimes in with- "I think that Trump's intent is to expose the CRIMINAL and ILLEGAL surveillance activity being conducted BY the FBI/CIA. He HAD the evidence, and THEY raided Mar-a-Lago and confiscated it."
You responded with "what Joe said" and said Trump was fighting city hall.
So yeah, you can "say" Trump is a crook yet seem to have to find some reason to defend him, that's there's some conspiracies against him or something, just as you've done for years and will continue to do so.
I don't think sf said that. I think that sf left room for doubt with word's like "apparently" that you conveniently omit.
DeleteSF's hyper-reality is not as self-assured as yours.
DeleteRonald,
DeleteYou should try to understand the difference between coming up with an explanation for someone's behavior and defending that behavior.
Seriously--I'm not insulting you--you have a habit of barging in and imposing your cartoonish view of everyone who disagrees with you, and it just makes you sound like a buffoon.
I understand the difference SF. It’s just that your explanations are always in defense of your ideological preference and always bashes the the political party you openly admit you detest. Always. Seriously dude, I can almost lip sync with your the opinions that have been spoon fed to you.
DeleteAnd no worries of insulting me. The only way you could insult me is if I respected your opinion.
Ronald,
DeleteIf you ever respected or agreed with anything I said, I would reconsider the wisdom of my statement.
Lets be realistic the system always did work for the privileged. It isnt just the FBI its the clueless media ranting about Marthas Vineyard. Why does the media miss Biden has been moving these aliens for months
ReplyDeleteIt is a serious problem because if the public doesnt believe in the FBI or DHS a civil war is possible. The entire top ranks of government agencies need to be fumigated.
I dont want a civil war.Hunter Biden needs jail time. Adam Schiff needs to resign and retire to private life.
OT Those of us from Front Page Magazine might remember the name Stephen Schwartz. I like and respect him even when I dont agree with him. Apparently, he is now transgender and I absolutely did not see this one.
Society has changed. Someday they will say you were old fashioned because you kept the same gender. In the 70s every family had an eccentric aunt or uncle that never married. Now due to gay marriage and men legitimately fearing family court that eccentric relative is likely straight. If a gay couple ends up in family court the probably mistreat everyone
I am sure it wasnt a rash decision. I hope a great writer is happy with his new identity. This is the part I dont get. As long as someone is happy okay. Its the extra pronouns, competing in womens sports that is an issue. Yet I would want to see what would happen if transwomen compete in male figure skating or gymnastics
...because they can.
ReplyDeleteThe best part is she and hubby have re-assembled their Clinton Global Initiative with a get-together on Monday and remarks that the "commitments" once again are being received after a 5 year hiatus.
ReplyDeleteHand out once more... so the question apparently for most is Secret Documents? Only matters if they are Trump's documents. And the beat goes on.
I have to be careful reasoning about this because I do find Trump annoying, so I have an automatic sympathy for officials who are less inclined to extend to him the same discretionary leniancy as they would to a less annoying suspect. But that's literally what "double standard" means, of course.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, there is one. But is that a bad thing? -- I am aware as I ask this that one of my habitual arguments with you guys is my attempt to convince you that another type of double standard in the legal world matters and/or exists! -- I'm not sure in this case, but I do think that a legal process with no room for discretion would be the poorer for it.
So both of these people mishandled secure documents, but one aspect we should keep in mind is motive. Hillary's mishandling was arguably in the course of conducting her legitimate business as a secretary of state. There may have been other motives, but that one is definitely in the mix. Whereas for Trump, there is no legitimate motive for him holding those documents, is there? So I think "why does he have them after leaving office" is the real central question; whereas Hillary has a legitimate motive, we don't need there to be an ulterior one to explain her actions. I don't know if it has any bearing on either case in a technical legal sense, I'm not a lawyer; but on a political, moral, and human levels, it's paramount.
I've given you the legitimate reasons for Trump to have these so-called "classified" documents a thousand times, jez. You can't believe that the FBI was "out to get him". I can.
DeleteYou are aware of the Court case that prompted the raid on Mar-a-Lago? Trump's lawsuit against the Russiagate hoaxers?
Delete:P
Delete“Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, a Clinton appointee, said Mr. Trump’s filing was too lengthy, detailing events that “are implausible because they lack any specific allegations which might provide factual support for the conclusions reached.”
DeleteThere were no attachments and/or citations to the documentary evidence in the 108-page filing, because there was a legal risk to citing evidence with a status in dispute by the corrupt people in Main Justice and the FBI. Secondarily, there was an obstruction risk to the President, if his legal team was to publish citations that were part of an ongoing investigation (Durham). However, this doesn’t negate the value of constructing the information silo, an attorney-client privilege.
If the documents seized by the FBI were part of the lawsuit established by President Trump and his legal team via Trump -v- Clinton, then the material seized is all attorney client work product. Lawfully obtained, constitutionally declassified and legally protected material.
This is where the ‘special master’ will play a key role.
Keep watching.
One of us, jez, is operating under a false premise. The question is, which one?
DeleteNot all whistleblowers are alike.
DeleteFJ, your explanation is plausible but not (yet) convincing. I'm witholding judgement pending evidence. Trump's Russiagate lawsuit was, as I understand it, legally inadequate. Did you find it substantial?
DeleteIt was "legally inadequate" because to "flesh out the argument" would mean revealing the classified documents that were declassified, but "might" get used in the Durham Investigation... which if they were, would place Trump in legal jeopardy from "Obstruction of Justice" charges from Durham. The Durham investigation has been used to keep Trump in "check". Until it's over, the documents cannot be published, or even revealed to the public, despite Trump's order to do so before leaving office.
Delete