7 Months In, What has Trump done?

RedDuke said:
My point exactly. You ignore such news. Just google Hillary fully exonerated.
More...

And the smackdown comes. You walked right into that on. Let see what the far-left, democrat spin masters at VOX have to say.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...dling-classified-information-state-department

"Investigators found no “deliberate mishandling” of classified information by Clinton and her aides"

First-off it says they did not find any "deliberate mishandling", which by simple reason means they found mishandling of classified information. This by itself is far from full exoneration. She mishandled national security secrets.

Second, they did not claim they found evidence to exonerate her, it says they found no evidence of deliberate mishandling. Big difference.

Your claim of full exoneration is a complete and total lie.

RedDuke = Finished
mortal-kombat-finish-him.gif
 
wildchild said:
And the smackdown comes. You walked right into that on. Let see what the far-left, democrat spin masters at VOX have to say.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...dling-classified-information-state-department

"Investigators found no “deliberate mishandling” of classified information by Clinton and her aides"

First-off it says they did not find any "deliberate mishandling", which by simple reason means they found mishandling of classified information. This by itself is far from full exoneration. She mishandled national security secrets.

Second, they did not claim they found evidence to exonerate her, it says they found no evidence of deliberate mishandling. Big difference.

Your claim of full exoneration is a complete and total lie.

RedDuke = Finished
mortal-kombat-finish-him.gif
More...
How fortunate for you that ET participation does not have a minimum IQ requirement.
 
wildchild said:
James Comey said she broke the law, but said she didnt intend to.
More...
You have correctly paraphrased Comey's remarks; yet in the interest of fairness and accuracy, I don't believe what you stated is sufficiently accurate and complete to be non-misleading. Here are excerpts from what James Comey actually said... (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system)

"...
Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.


In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.


To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.


As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.


I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.


I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization."
 
Last edited:
If Mueller got a subpoena or an order to preserve records from the court which was transmitted to the accused/target and then the person suddenly deleted 30,000 emails within a couple-few days of receiving that order, then the person would be convicted of obstruction. Period. He would not let that pass and it would be an easy conviction.
 
piezoe said:
You have correctly paraphrased Comey's remarks; yet in the interest of fairness and accuracy, I don't believe what you stated is sufficiently accurate and complete to be non-misleading. Here are excerpts from what James Comey actually said... (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system)

"...
Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.


In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.


To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.


As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.


I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.


I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization."
More...

Lets stop trying to re-write history here. We all know what happened and the lies that Hillary Clinton told.

 
piezoe said:
Let's start reading! And stop imagining.
More...

No imagining here, pal.

Just imagine what would have happened if Comey's boss didnt secretly meet with Bill Clinton on a tarmac a few days prior to his statement. Are we pretending that didnt happen either?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top