Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[MT15]

Who are they? I've been noticing a distinct lack of non-Democrats on this board. Not complaining, I don't need to be agreed with. I'm just curious who you consider both conservative and sensible?

There are a few who used to be Republicans until Trump corrupted the party and several more who are independent but are repulsed by what the MAGA movement has done, or is doing. I myself have been an independent voter my entire life until 2016. Now the R who will ever get my vote is like a unicorn - exceedingly rare. I did vote for one local R elected official this last time because IMO the D running was unqualified.

Clinton has been subject to 30 some years of investigations, many of them wholly political in nature and even admittedly so by Republicans. I’m not a huge fan of her or her husband, but she has handled the political smears with grace. She hasn’t called for an insurrection, she hasn’t tried to discredit the FBI or DOJ. She sat and testified for hour after hour. Yes, there were the normal types of negotiations about her cooperation; nothing rising to the level of obstruction of justice like Trump.

As for the FBI being hostile toward Clinton, look up why Comey decided he had to go public about her email investigation - especially the second time, right before the election. He took the unprecedented step of announcing that an investigation had been re-opened right before an election, which broke a strict protocol. It was reported that agents in the SDNY office were threatening to leak it if he didn’t go public. So he did, and it very well may have cost her the election. You know who else was under a national security investigation before the 2016 election? The Trump campaign, but Comey nor anyone else breathed a word about it so the public didn’t know before the election.

There were FBI agents who were disciplined because they were leaking negative stories about her during the investigation. The FBI is full - chock full - of Republicans. That’s just the way it has always been. The idea that the FBI is left-leaning is what is called gas-lighting by Rs. They know it’s just the opposite, but every accusation is projection from them.

 

[MT15]

Destroying no. I said that part wasn't the same. Trump is not accused of incorrectly storing classified information? I thought he was.

These goalposts must no be on wheels, they must be on some kind of rocket powered sled.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — On a Friday morning in June 2011, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had waited more than 12 hours for a set of talking points to be sent to her, a top aide told her the delay was because staff members were having problems sending faxes that would be secure from probing eyes.

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Mrs. Clinton responded in an email released early Friday by the State Department, one of about 3,000 newly released pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state. Of those, 66 documents contained classified information.

The note she sent to the top aide, Jacob J. Sullivan, instructing him how to strip sensitive material of official markings and send it in a “nonsecure” way is heavily redacted, so it is unknown what the talking points were about.

Keep in mind that this one is an anti-Trump story:

Trump Privately Applauded Hillary Clinton’s Lawyer for Deleting Her Emails

He seemed to imply to his attorneys that they ought to be as “great” as Hillary’s lawyer.

newrepublic.com

Clinton's lawyer deleted 30,000 emails that were under subpoena. Trump praised the lawyer for it. Another example of the similarities between Trump and Clinton when it comes to responding the demands for return of documents.


This CNN lady didn't know this either, so you're in good company:

CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin was in disbelief when she learned that Hillary Clinton’s aides destroyed her phones with a hammer.

When Boris Epshteyn, an adviser to Donald Trump, told her on air that the Democratic nominee’s aides destroyed her BlackBerries with hammers, Baldwin interrupted him to ask a reporter to fact-check that statement.

“Evan, hold on, can you fact-check?” Baldwin asked reporter Evan Perez on “CNN Newsroom” on Friday. “Evan Perez? Hammers? Fact-check that for me, on the fly.”

“Yes they did, Brooke.” Perez responded. “As he mentioned, there were 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads that the FBI said that in some way were used with her private email server, and they did in some cases just destroy them with hammers when they were done using them.”

Watch CNN anchor’s disbelief that Clinton aides destroyed phones with hammer

Brooke Baldwin asked for an on-the-fly fact-check.

thehill.com

If you need more evidence of destruction of evidence, just google "server bleachbit."

It’s already been pointed out to you that protocol is to destroy mobile devices when they are done using them. And it’s often done with hammers. You are spinning it to make it seem that they did it to hide evidence. And you also keep quoting the same NYT story - but it doesn’t actually say what you think it does. Nobody here is fooled by your deflection and your spin. You may as well give up, nobody that is not in the Trump cult believes that Clinton and Trump’s case are the same.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Now that would be an awesome moment in history! Trump takes office. Goes under anesthetic for hair plug surgery. While he's out, Nikki Haley pardons him.

How entertaining would be the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the unbiased media!

“When someone shows you who they are believe them the first time.”
― Maya Angelou​

 

[Snarky Sack]

No, that's what Trump and his defenders keep saying because then "I declassified everything" becomes a defense....a horrible defense, but a defense nonetheless. The 31 counts involving the documents are charges of violations of 18 USC 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, section (e), which reads (notice the word classified, or any variant of it, appears nowhere in the law):

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or"

The word "classified" appears in the first, second and third paragraph of the indictment:

Are you saying that after ten months of the prosecution leaking about classified documents, showing us "shocking" staged pictures of classified covers, and the media squawking "classified," like a room full of parrots, they have suddenly dropped the classified angle and are going to go for "military documents" as the basis for their case? I guess you are. That is a quick about face, even for the agile Democrats of the DOJ.

Good luck selling that to a Florida jury.

As for your examples, again, if we are talking about these two being the same, we need examples of the same behavior. None of your examples meet the criteria of matching the things I mentioned. I'll explain why:

my request:
"Examples of Hillary directing someone to move the classified information on her server to a spot where she could access it, but investigators couldn’t find it."

your example:
"On a Friday morning in June 2011, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had waited more than 12 hours for a set of talking points to be sent to her, a top aide told her the delay was because staff members were having problems sending faxes that would be secure from probing eyes."

That is not Hillary trying to move classified information from where it was to a spot where only she had access to it, but investigators could not find it. That is a case of Hillary asking someone to email her classified information. Unless I'm mistaken, the subpoena issued to Clinton was sometime in 2015, 4 years after the incident you refer to. I want an example of Hillary taking some kind of action to put the information under her control so she could secret it away from the government agency that was looking for it.

Yes, hillary directed her staff to strip it of classified markings and then send it to her personal server. The investigators never - repeat, never - had access to her personal server. So she indeed had her staff "move the classified information to her server on a spot where investigators - OK, if you take issue with the phrase "couldn't find it," you have a point. They could have easily found it, if they had taken the server from her. They chose not to.

Know why?

But Hillary had her staff move documents to a place investigators could not or did not find them.

my request:
—Examples of Hillary directing her legal team to lie and say she did not have materials that she knew she had.

your example:
"Clinton's lawyer deleted 30,000 emails that were under subpoena. Trump praised the lawyer for it. Another example of the similarities between Trump and Clinton when it comes to responding the demands for return of documents."

That is not an example of Hillary telling her lawyer to lie and say she did not have documents that she knew she had. Others have shown here that the directive to delete the emails was given before the subpoena was issued, and is in line with precedent allowing government officials to delete emails that they deemed as personal. If there is evidence to support the claim that Hillary told her lawyer to delete those to avoid turning them over in accordance with the subpoena, please provide it, otherwise

It wasn't her lawyer. Does it make a difference who she directed to get rid of material that was under subpoena?

Remember when her IT boys testified that the reason that they deleted material on Clinton's server after it had been subpoena's was that she had previously told them too and when the subpoena came up, the realized that they would be in trouble and followed her orders retroactively? Is that what you mean by "Others have shown that the directive was given before the subpoena was issued?" You are welcome to buy that if you want.

I want an example of Hillary telling her lawyer something along the lines of "Oh, you found those documents they subpoenaed? Type up a document saying that you did a diligent search and couldn't find them, and sign it "

Yes, because a lawyer who admitted that would live to a ripe old age, I'm sure.

my request:
—Examples of Hillary directing her lawyers to hide or destroy evidence that they found.

your response:
"CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin was in disbelief when she learned that Hillary Clinton’s aides destroyed her phones with a hammer. "

Unless I'm mistaken, the destroyed phones were phones that were no longer in use, and had been destroyed long before the subpoena was issued. Again, if there is evidence that Hillary told her lawyer, "Hey, they subpoenaed these phones. Please destroy them so that we don't have to turn them over," please share it. Otherwise, please provide an example of Hillary telling her lawyer to hide or destroy evidence that the lawyers found.

Your premise rests on completely believing Clinton's version of why she did things. Common sense tells us that an honest person, under investigation and the subject of multiple subpoena's would be telling her aides "don't delete or destroy ANYTHING. It would only make me look bad. I want everything to come out so it will be known how innocent and cooperative I am!"

Do you know what spoliation is?

It's the legal principle that when someone destroys evidence, in anticipation of or during litigation, the presumption is that the information was unfavorable to the person who did or directed the destruction and that the jury can be instructed that the information is to be presumed unfavorable.

Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

www.law.cornell.edu

FBI: No evidence Clinton ordered deletion of subpoenaed email archive

“We did not have evidence establish someone told him to do that.”

thehill.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

It’s already been pointed out to you that protocol is to destroy mobile devices when they are done using them.

Yes, and I did not buy that cork-and-bull explanation then, nor back in 2015 when the fairy tale was first read to me. So, I'm not going to finally say "mkay." because you repeat it one more time.

And it’s often done with hammers. You are spinning it to make it seem that they did it to hide evidence.

Even if it were true that senior staffers, with hammers - rather than IT techs with professional tools, are tasked to destroy old equipment, Clinton's best move if innocent would have been to say "STOP! No more destroying my devices. You know how guilty that makes me look, for Pete's sake?"

Seriously, think about that. Were the staffers provided safety goggles for this destruction by hammer? Was it in a secure location, or outside so they didn't have to sweep plastic and wires off the floor? Were they wearing their suits and dresses, or did they change into coveralls for this manual labor? Maybe they did it on jeans day?

Is there any written SOP anywhere in government that directs non IT staffers to dispose of government IT equipment in this way, with no record of the destruction other than their memories? That story is so silly, it is only through full blown partisanship that media talking heads were able to report it with straight faces.

And you also keep quoting the same NYT story - but it doesn’t actually say what you think it does. Nobody here is fooled by your deflection and your spin. You may as well give up, nobody that is not in the Trump cult believes that Clinton and Trump’s case are the same.

I'm enjoying this too much to give it up. I like debating, especially when it is intellectual. With a few exceptions, this board has that.

Sack: those were faxes in your example, not emails. It was in an email that Clinton told her staff to go ahead and send them in a non-secure manner, because she had been waiting over 12 hours for the secure faxes to go through. Where is your evidence that this was done with actual emails, even once, let alone thousands of times? The 2 thousand odd emails were never classified, but it was determined after the fact that they should have been “confidential”. At this point we have to assume that you are skewing facts on purpose.

I'm not sure what is the moral or ethical difference between stripping classified markings from emails and stripping them from faxes.

That's just the example we know about. Unless you can prove that that was a one-off, the Clinton method of stripping classified markings before sending documents fully explains why thousands of of documents were found on her server with classified information, but no classified markings.

That was the point I was making, I knew it was faxes that they were talking about in that one example.

Now that I think about it, I wonder how many documents with classified information but no markings that were faxed to her Clinton has to this day? She need never fear a raid to find out, that's for sure.

As for snark-nearly every post of yours on here has contained some snark. I have never complained about it, you must be confusing me with someone else. I have complained about your inconsistencies but that was in another thread.

You are right as rain, you did not complain about it. It was @cuddlemonkey who complained on your behalf. Well not even on your behalf, they just said something about me being Snarky to you. My response was that if - if, mind you - you were surprised that you were condescending to a poster called "Snarky Sack" and got snark in return, you shouldn't have been. Not my exact words, I remember being more clever than that.

Anyway, I apologize. Sincerely. I mispoke and gave the wrong impression.

It would have been more fair for me to say, "MT15 is not complaining, why are you?" I think cuddlemonkey is one of those who like to play knight in white satin on the internet, but would walk quickly by if a man in a skirt were assaulting a woman in the ladies room. That's only my opinion, of course.

I probably shouldn't have used that login name. It's a recycle from a board I belonged to years ago. It seems to prompt people to take every post I make as snark, just as you did. I'd rather they just say, "I disagree because . . . " or "No, you're wrong, and here's the evidence:"

Think I should change it? I'll follow your advice. At least on whether to change it or not. Allah only knows what name you might pick for me.

Her picking what to turn over was a cooperation - she received permission to remove personal emails and an officer of the court had to be present.

Now, there's a part of the story I hadn't heard. About the officer of the court watching her remove personal emails. Have a link for that?

My impression - and it's been awhile - was that she picked what she turned over, not what she removed. Then she destroyed what she had removed with hammers and Bleachbit.

Trump deliberately took classified documents, he knew they were classified, he knew how to declassify documents he just didn’t do it, he hid them from the Archives and the FBI and jerked them around for over a year, he lied to his lawyers, he suggested his lawyers lie to the FBI, he caused his lawyers to sign a false affidavit, he kept the documents in insecure areas, he showed them to journalists and political PAC members (that we know of) and who knows who else got to see them. There were plenty of foreign actors around Trump during the time. We still don‘t have all the documents because we know from a recording that he had a very sensitive document at Bedminster the month before the Saudis came for their golf tournament. This document concerned a theoretical invasion of Iran, and cannot be located now. How much do you think the Saudis would have liked to see that?

If you seriously think these cases are the same - well, you cannot be taken seriously. Sorry, it’s not even close.

Those are the accusations. Mind if I wait for the evidence?

 

[FullMonte]

The word "classified" appears in the first, second and third paragraph of the indictment:

Are you saying that after ten months of the prosecution leaking about classified documents, showing us "shocking" staged pictures of classified covers, and the media squawking "classified," like a room full of parrots, they have suddenly dropped the classified angle and are going to go for "military documents" as the basis for their case? I guess you are. That is a quick about face, even for the agile Democrats of the DOJ.

Good luck selling that to a Florida jury.

Just when I thought your claims could not get any crazier, you literally post here that the DOJ is prosecuting Donald Trump for the crime of being president? Exactly what federal statute makes it illegal for someone to be president?

I was (and still am) going to say that I wasn't going to post any more about the Hillary comparison, but thankfully, you finally admitted that there are differences between the cases, so we don't have to continue along that thread.

Yes, hillary directed her staff to strip it of classified markings and then send it to her personal server. The investigators never - repeat, never - had access to her personal server. So she indeed had her staff "move the classified information to her server on a spot where investigators - OK, if you take issue with the phrase "couldn't find it," you have a point. They could have easily found it, if they had taken the server from her. They chose not to.

Know why?

But Hillary had her staff move documents to a place investigators could not or did not find them.

Except, again, the directive to have that email sent was 4 years prior to the subpoena. You have not provided any evidence that after the documents were subpoenaed, she had them moved to a location specifically to hide them from investigators. By comparison, the day after the subpoena was received, Trump had boxes of documents moved to his private residence, where his aide said he wanted to go through them.

It wasn't her lawyer. Does it make a difference who she directed to get rid of material that was under subpoena?

Remember when her IT boys testified that the reason that they deleted material on Clinton's server after it had been subpoena's was that she had previously told them too and when the subpoena came up, the realized that they would be in trouble and followed her orders retroactively? Is that what you mean by "Others have shown that the directive was given before the subpoena was issued?" You are welcome to buy that if you want.

Yeah, that's what I meant by that. And, thank you for giving me the authority to buy that story. You know who else bought that...the FBI...in the very article that you provided in your post here. The subpoena (a congressional subpoena, not a DOJ/FBI subpeona--which raises a question I have. Did the FBI/DOJ ever issue a subpoena to Hillary for the emails?) was issued in 2015. According to your own article:

"According to the FBI’s report of its investigation, Combetta deleted an archive of emails from the server in March 2015, after the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued a subpoena for records relating to the 2012 attacks on the U.S. outpost in Libya.

According to the FBI’s notes, longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills instructed Combetta’s company, Platte River Networks, to delete a set of archived emails in December 2014. The Denver-based company maintained Clinton’s server."

"But Combetta apparently forgot the request and didn’t immediately comply. He told investigators that sometime between March 25 and March 31, 2015, he “had an ‘oh s—‘ moment and … deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the [Platte River Networks] server.”

"“His account is credible,” Comey said Wednesday. “He was told to do it in 2014, screwed up and didn’t do it, panicked when he realized he hadn’t and then raced back in and did it after Congress asked for the records and the New York Times wrote about them.”"

Yes, because a lawyer who admitted that would live to a ripe old age, I'm sure.

Well, there we go. You admit that a lawyer would never do that, so that would imply that none of Hillary's lawyers did that. But, Trump's lawyer did. Here's a question....If it's so unbelievable that a lawyer would do that, how likely is it that everything Trump was doing was above board, and when he told his lawyer to "pluck out" the questionable material, the lawyer said, "Nope, that's it, I'm going to the feds"? I bet that's very unlikely. I think it's much more likely that Trump was being very sketchy about everything (so sketchy that his lawyer took such detailed notes as to document Trump's facial expressions), and when Trump told him to hide/destroy evidence, that was the last straw.

Your premise rests on completely believing Clinton's version of why she did things.

No, my premise is much simpler than that, and it's something that you are either unwilling to admit, or simply don't want to acknowledge publicly. The question here is not "did Hillary and Trump do the same thing?" The question here is "Is the evidence that the DOJ/FBI was able to uncover in either case strong enough to move forward with a prosecution?

In Hillary's case you have some clear bad actions and very poor judgement. However, there doesn't seem to be enough actual credible evidence to move forward with a prosecution. She may well have done everything you claim she did. But, I have yet to see you provide any actual PROOF that she did. Maybe she did call the server guys and tell them, "quick, delete everything before the FBI comes calling, and if they ask, tell them I told you to do it last year." Let's go with that. So, she really did that. If the server guy testifies under oath that she told him to do it a year earlier and he forgot, and there isn't a phone call log, email log, text message, or something to impeach his statement, then you don't have evidence to prosecute with. Compare that to Trump who's lawyer signed a sworn statement saying "We performed a diligent search, and we have returned all requested materials," and then when the FBI searches the property, they find subpoenaed documents in Trump's desk drawer. Now you have actual evidence to move forward. You have a sworn statement from an officer of the court saying that they did not have the documents, and you have documents in Trump's desk where he would have seen them regularly.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Just when I thought your claims could not get any crazier, you literally post here that the DOJ is prosecuting Donald Trump for the crime of being president? Exactly what federal statute makes it illegal for someone to be president?

No, I did not say anything like that. Not sure why you thought I did. I just checked in the part you quoted and it didn't say anything like that.

I was (and still am) going to say that I wasn't going to post any more about the Hillary comparison, but thankfully, you finally admitted that there are differences between the cases, so we don't have to continue along that thread.

Of course nothing is ever the same as anything else. In the case of Clinton and Trump re: classified information, is similar enough that the comparison is valid. I get that you disafree.

But if you're tired of talking about it, I will let you have the rest of your post as the last word on that subject. I'm still wondering how you thought I posted that the DOJ is prosecuting Trump for the crime of being president.

 

[brandon]

rather than IT techs with professional tools,

The professional tool is typically just a plain old drill.

And yes, a hammer works, too.

 

[FullMonte]

No, I did not say anything like that. Not sure why you thought I did. I just checked in the part you quoted and it didn't say anything like that.

Well..let's see. I said that Trump's charges had nothing to do with classified information, and that it was about national defense information. You said "Trump is not accused of incorrectly storing classified information? I thought he was." I responded by posting the text of the law that he is charged with violating, and pointed out that it never mentions classified information. Your response was "The word "classified" appears in the first, second and third paragraph of the indictment:" So, if the fact that the word "classified" appears in the first few paragraphs repeatedly is somehow proof that he is being charged with mishandling classified information, then it would only make sense that the fact that the word "president" (and variants) appears repeatedly in those same paragraphs mean that he is being charged with the crime of being president, right?

Or, perhaps the word classified appearing in the early pages of the document as they describe the overall situation aren't actually showing that his charges have anything to do with the information being classifed.

Of course nothing is ever the same as anything else. In the case of Clinton and Trump re: classified information, is similar enough that the comparison is valid. I get that you disafree.

It's similar enough that the comparison regarding mishandling classified information is a valid comparison. However, the comparison of "Hillary wasn't prosecuted so Trump shouldn't be prosecuted because they did the same thing" is not a valid comparison.

Do you agree that there is the possibility that regardless of what Hillary Clinton did, the FBI simply was not able to source enough credible information to prosecute the case to a conviction?

But if you're tired of talking about it, I will let you have the rest of your post as the last word on that subject. I'm still wondering how you thought I posted that the DOJ is prosecuting Trump for the crime of being president.

No, I'm not tired of it so much. But, I don't want this thread derailed any more about something that isn't relevant to the topic of this thread by discussing a case that is several years old and has been adjudicated by two different DOJs to the same result.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Well..let's see. I said that Trump's charges had nothing to do with classified information, and that it was about national defense information. You said "Trump is not accused of incorrectly storing classified information? I thought he was." I responded by posting the text of the law that he is charged with violating, and pointed out that it never mentions classified information. Your response was "The word "classified" appears in the first, second and third paragraph of the indictment:" So, if the fact that the word "classified" appears in the first few paragraphs repeatedly is somehow proof that he is being charged with mishandling classified information, then it would only make sense that the fact that the word "president" (and variants) appears repeatedly in those same paragraphs mean that he is being charged with the crime of being president, right?

Uh . . . no.

Wow, you went a long way for that, though.

Or, perhaps the word classified appearing in the early pages of the document as they describe the overall situation aren't actually showing that his charges have anything to do with the information being classifed.

The charges don't specify classified documents. But the indictment repeats the word "classified" like a mantra. You think that was just playing to the public? Makes sense, seeing that they have talked about classified nonstop.

But as I said, if they really are going to make the quick shift from "classified documents" to "defense information," good luck with the jury. They're going to need it.

It's similar enough that the comparison regarding mishandling classified information is a valid comparison. However, the comparison of "Hillary wasn't prosecuted so Trump shouldn't be prosecuted because they did the same thing" is not a valid comparison.

That is contradictory. It wasn't just about classified information with Clinton either.

Do you agree that there is the possibility that regardless of what Hillary Clinton did, the FBI simply was not able to source enough credible information to prosecute the case to a conviction?

No, because that is not the reason Comey gave. He said that the reason was that there was no precedent to prosecute such a case. He never said anything close to "not enough credible information." The facts were not really in dispute, it was his decision not to prosecute those facts that shocked and angered many people.

I wasn't one of them. I thought it would have been horrible for our political system to see a presidential candidate prosecuted just prior to the start of elections for taking a "rank has its privilege" approach to following the rules as nearly all senior officials do. Indicting Clinton, who was already the presumptive nominee for the Dem nomination would have shown zero respect for democracy.

I'm sorry that Loretta Lynch found a weasel way to recuse herself without recusing herself. Also sorry that she didn't turn the decision over to the next senior person at DOJ instead of giving the hot potato to the head of another agency.

No, I'm not tired of it so much. But, I don't want this thread derailed any more about something that isn't relevant to the topic of this thread by discussing a case that is several years old and has been adjudicated by two different DOJs to the same result.

I intended for you to have the last word, but you asked me questions. You can take the last word on your next post, if you like.

 

[MT15]

Yes, and I did not buy that cork-and-bull explanation then, nor back in 2015 when the fairy tale was first read to me. So, I'm not going to finally say "mkay." because you repeat it one more time.

Even if it were true that senior staffers, with hammers - rather than IT techs with professional tools, are tasked to destroy old equipment, Clinton's best move if innocent would have been to say "STOP! No more destroying my devices. You know how guilty that makes me look, for Pete's sake?"

Seriously, think about that. Were the staffers provided safety goggles for this destruction by hammer? Was it in a secure location, or outside so they didn't have to sweep plastic and wires off the floor? Were they wearing their suits and dresses, or did they change into coveralls for this manual labor? Maybe they did it on jeans day?

Is there any written SOP anywhere in government that directs non IT staffers to dispose of government IT equipment in this way, with no record of the destruction other than their memories? That story is so silly, it is only through full blown partisanship that media talking heads were able to report it with straight faces.

I'm enjoying this too much to give it up. I like debating, especially when it is intellectual. With a few exceptions, this board has that.


I'm not sure what is the moral or ethical difference between stripping classified markings from emails and stripping them from faxes.

That's just the example we know about. Unless you can prove that that was a one-off, the Clinton method of stripping classified markings before sending documents fully explains why thousands of of documents were found on her server with classified information, but no classified markings.

That was the point I was making, I knew it was faxes that they were talking about in that one example.

Now that I think about it, I wonder how many documents with classified information but no markings that were faxed to her Clinton has to this day? She need never fear a raid to find out, that's for sure.

You are right as rain, you did not complain about it. It was @cuddlemonkey who complained on your behalf. Well not even on your behalf, they just said something about me being Snarky to you. My response was that if - if, mind you - you were surprised that you were condescending to a poster called "Snarky Sack" and got snark in return, you shouldn't have been. Not my exact words, I remember being more clever than that.

Anyway, I apologize. Sincerely. I mispoke and gave the wrong impression.

It would have been more fair for me to say, "MT15 is not complaining, why are you?" I think cuddlemonkey is one of those who like to play knight in white satin on the internet, but would walk quickly by if a man in a skirt were assaulting a woman in the ladies room. That's only my opinion, of course.

I probably shouldn't have used that login name. It's a recycle from a board I belonged to years ago. It seems to prompt people to take every post I make as snark, just as you did. I'd rather they just say, "I disagree because . . . " or "No, you're wrong, and here's the evidence:"

Think I should change it? I'll follow your advice. At least on whether to change it or not. Allah only knows what name you might pick for me.

Now, there's a part of the story I hadn't heard. About the officer of the court watching her remove personal emails. Have a link for that?

My impression - and it's been awhile - was that she picked what she turned over, not what she removed. Then she destroyed what she had removed with hammers and Bleachbit.

Those are the accusations. Mind if I wait for the evidence?

I’m done with this deflection of yours. You haven’t cited any evidence of what you allege Clinton did, whereas I have at least made a good faith effort to show you facts. So, as long as you aren’t showing any proof, it is just your unsupported opinion that Clinton’s staff destroyed mobile devices in order to avoid giving them up (which is stupid if they are backed up like they should be) and it is just your unsupported opinion that she used a program to wipe a hard drive. She didn’t and I’m not running anymore internet errands for you because you don’t believe what you are shown anyway.

As for allegations - sure, these are allegations that were gleaned from the testimony of Trump’s aides, employees and lawyers. It seems silly to imagine that all of these people are trying to “get Trump” and are making it all up. They would be opening themselves up to perjury. Rather, it seems to me they are telling the truth under oath. But then, I’m not trying to smear the entire DOJ and the FBI to make an orange conman look better.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I’m done with this deflection of yours. You haven’t cited any evidence of what you allege Clinton did, whereas I have at least made a good faith effort to show you facts. So, as long as you aren’t showing any proof, it is just your unsupported opinion that Clinton’s staff destroyed mobile devices in order to avoid giving them up (which is stupid if they are backed up like they should be) and it is just your unsupported opinion that she used a program to wipe a hard drive. She didn’t and I’m not running anymore internet errands for you because you don’t believe what you are shown anyway.

No, those are facts. Sorry, I'm not going to find you references for the whole story of what happened in 2015. It's common knowledge. You want to think I just made the whole thing up, go right ahead and think that.

If you want to say, "Whatever happened with Clinton then is irrelevant to Trump now," you'd have a much better point than denying reality. Neither Trump's lawyers, nor any of his witnesses will be allowed to complain about double standards.

But . . . if it ever goes to a jury - a Florida jury, remember - the jury can and will consider that clear double standard, even if only in their individual minds.

As for allegations - sure, these are allegations that were gleaned from the testimony of Trump’s aides, employees and lawyers. It seems silly to imagine that all of these people are trying to “get Trump” and are making it all up. They would be opening themselves up to perjury. Rather, it seems to me they are telling the truth under oath. But then, I’m not trying to smear the entire DOJ and the FBI to make an orange conman look better.

Your comment would make sense if we did not have the OIG report and the Durham Special Counsel report to show how the DOJ/FBI has been operating in regards to Trump since he announced.

 

[MT15]

Sack, you continue to spew misinformation! Here is Comey’s statement in its entirety:

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI

Director Comey's statement to the press on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

www.fbi.gov

I will excerpt a few salient points. And I am very ticked off that you have made a liar out of me by continually spouting lies and disinformation about this matter and I have run another internet errand for you.

“For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

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. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.”

‘Continued in next post

 

[Snarky Sack]

Here's my question: Is there anyone on here who thinks that - given a Florida jury - the prosecution will be likely to obtain anything more than a hung jury?

It's a criminal case. All it takes is one Trump supporter to make assumptions about double standards, weaponized government, TDS and whatever else a Floridian might believe and there can be no conviction.

One thing about Trump supporters, they are used to being one against many, so he or she will not be intimidated.

That is worst case scenario for Trump. Nearly 70% of Florida Republicans support Trump as president, even with their own governor running against him. Most of those would vote for Trump against any Democrat, so they would surely vote for Trump on a jury when he was against a whole Democrat prosecution team.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sack, you continue to spew misinformation! Here is Comey’s statement in its entirety:

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI

Director Comey's statement to the press on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

www.fbi.gov

I will excerpt a few salient points. And I am very ticked off that you have made a liar out of me by continually spouting lies and disinformation about this matter and I have run another internet errand for you.

“For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

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. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.”

‘Continued in next post

Yeah, he lied about that.

I've been in government where there was lots of classified information. In government, people don't write classified documents and forget to mark them classified so they appear non-classified until they are recovered from someone's private server. It doesn't happen. Government is much more classification happy than wanting to leave off markings.

We used to fill out a daily SITREP that was classified only when the form was filled out (early '80s). But it was pre-marked CLASSIFIED, lest it contain classified information without being marked even for a moment.

We had to keep the blank forms in a safe. If I had left a blank form laying on my desk over night, I would have been reprimanded. If I had made a copy of a filled out form, but covered the "CONFIDENTIAL" when I copied it and then taken it to my room, I'd have been put under the jail.

What about the name change idea? I don't want to keep answering questions about snarky vs. not snarky? If you don't disagree, I'll make the change tonight, so as not to confuse people.

 

[MT15]

Continuation of Comey‘s statement:

Pay attention Sack, here is where your assertion that Clinton deleted emails falls apart. Her lawyers (officers of the court) sorted her emails, even so, the FBI was able to recover some of the deleted emails.

“It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.”

With that, I am truly done. You don’t know what you are talking about when you start in on Clinton. It’s just that simple. You are trolling or you are not able to read for comprehension. I don’t think you are stupid and your admission that you are enjoying this back and forth - which isn’t a good faith enjoyable discussion - tends to make me think you might be trolling.

 

[FullMonte]

Uh . . . no.

Wow, you went a long way for that, though.

The charges don't specify classified documents. But the indictment repeats the word "classified" like a mantra. You think that was just playing to the public? Makes sense, seeing that they have talked about classified nonstop.

The charges don't specify classified documents. Exactly. The law being charged does not deal with classified documents.

But as I said, if they really are going to make the quick shift from "classified documents" to "defense information," good luck with the jury. They're going to need it.

Fair point. Quick question, though...When did the Special Counsel or his team ever say that this case was about classified documents? And, are you suggesting that public statements made by ANYONE prior to the case being brought are somehow supposed to be used by the jurors? I thought the jury was only supposed to make a decision based on the fact presented in the case.

 

[FullMonte]

Here's my question: Is there anyone on here who thinks that - given a Florida jury - the prosecution will be likely to obtain anything more than a hung jury?

It's a criminal case. All it takes is one Trump supporter to make assumptions about double standards, weaponized government, TDS and whatever else a Floridian might believe and there can be no conviction.

One thing about Trump supporters, they are used to being one against many, so he or she will not be intimidated.

That is worst case scenario for Trump. Nearly 70% of Florida Republicans support Trump as president, even with their own governor running against him. Most of those would vote for Trump against any Democrat, so they would surely vote for Trump on a jury when he was against a whole Democrat prosecution team.

Well, since the grand jury that issued the indictment and charges was from Florida, I'd say that it's possible to get a conviction.

Also, it's telling that in your hypothetical, you acknowledge a Trump supporter ignoring the evidence and deciding to not convict. Nowhere in your hypothetical did you even imply that the Trump supporter was the only one who saw the evidence and realized that Trump was innocent, and it was the "get trump" folks who were wrongfully trying to convict him. Your own hypothetical is a hung jury because one Trump supporter wouldn't vote to convict because Hillary wasn't prosecuted.

Much like all of the other Trump supporters out there, you will look for any defense of Trump except for "Trump is innocent," "None of this seems like something Trump would do," etc. It's always about political motivation, election interference, etc.