The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...

[printcraft]

Ok. I admit I may not be fully aware of all the facts.

Petraeus gave classified information to an author who did not have clearance who then announced it (some time later) at a conference.

To whom did Clinton send classified information who was not cleared to have it? Sidney Blumenthal? My understanding is that he sent her classified information, not the other way around. Again, open to additional facts on this.

Well, she didn't know the stuff she was sending out with the (C) on top meant confidential...... so........

 

[foszoe]

Ok. I admit I may not be fully aware of all the facts.

Petraeus gave classified information to an author who did not have clearance who then announced it (some time later) at a conference.

To whom did Clinton send classified information who was not cleared to have it? Sidney Blumenthal? My understanding is that he sent her classified information, not the other way around. Again, open to additional facts on this.

Is the crime in the sending or mishandling?

 

[printcraft]

Is the crime in the sending or mishandling?

Ask the sailor on the nuke sub that took the selfie and was then prosecuted.

 

[T.Lex]

Deleted emails after a subpoena is not intent? It qualifies as negligence?

My understanding - again, subject to sourced material saying otherwise - is that the emails were deleted prior to the subpoena. The use of the tool to eliminate slack space, to make it more difficult to recovery the already-deleted emails, happened after.

You and T.LEX have made me change my mind in the past but you've got a real uphill climb on this one.

I'm not defending HRC. I'm defending the process. Well, I'm not even really defending the result of the process to not indict - I don't know nearly enough about it.

What I do believe is that the result was reasonable.

Look, Bill's impeachment process was how it was supposed to work. He was not "convicted." Did he lie? Sure seemed like it. But the process worked, even if the result was unpalatable. (Pardon the pun.)

People get not convicted of stuff all the time that they did (just ask the resident LEOs). Prosecutors have to weigh the time/expense/cost of prosecuting close cases. They are allowed to do that. Heck, they are supposed to do that.

Again, my assertion is more that Trump does not understand how our system is supposed to work. Still waiting on proof that he does understand it.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, she didn't know the stuff she was sending out with the (C) on top meant confidential...... so........

Ask the sailor on the nuke sub that took the selfie and was then prosecuted.

Links?

Is the crime in the sending or mishandling?

Sending to someone - or allowing someone without clearance access - is mishandling, from what I understand. That's one difference with why Petraeus was treated differently.

 

[printcraft]

Two at random........ 100's of links available.....Hillary Clinton told FBI she didn't know a 'C' mark meant emails were confidential - The Verge


Navy sailor pleads guilty to taking pictures of nuclear submarine - NY Daily News

 

[T.Lex]

Two at random........ 100's of links available.....Hillary Clinton told FBI she didn't know a 'C' mark meant emails were confidential - The Verge


Navy sailor pleads guilty to taking pictures of nuclear submarine - NY Daily News

Ah, ok.

Well, as to HRC, she's an idiot. She's a bad candidate. Again, not a defense of her.

As for the sailor, my first reaction is that they were specifically told that engine room and related machinery was classified, so dude's an idiot for taking the pics. Dude did not negligently take the pics of the classified areas - he did so intentionally. If these were pics of a group that happened to include the classified stuff, then that's a different case.

But, Clinton was (apparently) allowed to set up the email server. Using the server was not a criminal issue. Using the server to send confidential material was a possible criminal issue. There is a reasonable argument that her use was negligent.

Can no one address whether Trump understands how the AG/special prosecutor system is supposed to work? Or the criminal justice system at all?

 

[printcraft]

Ah, ok.

Well, as to HRC, she's an idiot. She's a bad candidate. Again, not a defense of her.

As for the sailor, my first reaction is that they were specifically told that engine room and related machinery was classified, so dude's an idiot for taking the pics. Dude did not negligently take the pics of the classified areas - he did so intentionally. If these were pics of a group that happened to include the classified stuff, then that's a different case.

But, Clinton was (apparently) allowed to set up the email server. Using the server was not a criminal issue. Using the server to send confidential material was a possible criminal issue. There is a reasonable argument that her use was negligent.

Can no one address whether Trump understands how the AG/special prosecutor system is supposed to work? Or the criminal justice system at all?

Yes, appointing a special prosector who is not beholden to the person they are prosecuting is probably a good idea.... weird right?

Also:

A Look at Federal Cases on Handling Classified Information | Political News | US News

SANDY BERGER, (who was removing records on behalf of the clintons, BRYAN NISHIMURA, JOHN DEUTCH

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, appointing a special prosector who is not beholden to the person they are prosecuting is probably a good idea.... weird right?

Hell, I was right with him when he said that. Huge issues with it going anywhere, but he is allowed to do that. Well, the AG is.

I'll go back and re-read my posts, but that is NOT what I'm talking about. The stuff that came AFTER that part is where he left me wondering if he understands how it is supposed to work.

You know, the part about sending HRC to jail without regard for any investigation.

 

[printcraft]

........

You know, the part about sending HRC to jail without regard for any investigation.

That was not what he meant. Not even close to reality.
That is the attempted spin going out.

It simply meant that had anyone else been president she would not have been given the leeway and grace she was given by this administration.
She has so far gotten away with it STRICTLY for positive political action directed her way.
Had it been anybody else not as well connected, as shown in the links above, they would have been prosecuted.

 

[T.Lex]

That was not what he meant. Not even close to reality.
That is the attempted spin going out.

It simply meant that had anyone else been president she would not have been given the leeway and grace she was given by this administration.

Speaking of reality, I believe this is a direct quote, "You'd be in jail."

Is that not a direct quote? Where do you get the "I would not have given the leeway and grace given by this administration." It was implied somehow?

 

[printcraft]

Yes, a statement of "she got away with it" when she is guilty as sin.
She was not prosecuted because of who she is in the party. (period)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Deleted emails after a subpoena is not intent? It qualifies as negligence?

You and T.LEX have made me change my mind in the past but you've got a real uphill climb on this one.

Foszoe... I believe there was intent. Knowing who Clinton is... We all know there was intent. We know how corrupt she is.

However, from the legal side of things... and her being who she is... it's going to have to be overwhelming evidence to lock her up. Right now, that much evidence doesn't exist. Her excuses, however weak they may be, are going to fly for now.

 

[spec4]

The overwhelming evidence would have to come from verifiable testimony from someone involved in it and receiving immunity. That person IMO does not and never will be available for reasons of self preservation.

Susan McDougal (sp) comes to mind.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, a statement of "she got away with it" when she is guilty as sin.
She was not prosecuted because of who she is in the party. (period)

Ok.

Let's accept that that's true.

a) Do you think Trump would ensure a fair investigation of HRC?

b) Do you think Trump would ensure a fair investigation of one of his wealthy friends? Or, for that matter, one of his wealthy enemies?

 

[jamil]

Never Trump Republicans May Accidentally Elect Trump - Video

Yep, just keep pushing. You may sink The Hag yet

I'm not aware of many nevertrumpers who would hate to see the Hag sunk. It is possible to be weary of both major party candidates at the same time.

Maybe it's just that Trump would have a Justice Dept, FBI, administration that couldn't be bought on an airport tarmac? One that would actually transparently enforce and follow the law?

NeverTrumpers are reaching?

I think that the DoJ/FBI/administration wasn't bought. I think they were threatened. I kinda think, given the information that Obama himself conducted classified conversations with HRC and knew it was on her private server, Clinton told Loretta Linch to tell her boss, if we fry, HE fries.

In fairness, I thought I heard him say and/or my understanding was he'd appoint a special prosecutor, in the context of the previous investigation was corrupted and being a shame, justice was not done. Which for him is fairly reasonable, not unlike some of his prior baseless and thin skinned comments he'd go after journalists and libel laws because someone hurt his feelers.

I think this is right.

 

[jamil]

Ok.

Let's accept that that's true.

a) Do you think Trump would ensure a fair investigation of HRC?

b) Do you think Trump would ensure a fair investigation of one of his wealthy friends? Or, for that matter, one of his wealthy enemies?

Define "fair".

If he went after her at all it would depend what he thought he could get out of it. I'd be more concerned that he let things go. As for wealthy enemies, same thing. If the wealthy enemy said he had small hands, Trump would probably try to destroy that person. If it was just business and Trump thought he could get more out of it by not pursuing justice I think he'd not pursue it.

 

[Alpo]

 

[T.Lex]

Honestly, I'd accept "fair" by any honest definition.

As your scenarios describe, I do not think he would be fair. I think the professionals working for him would try to be fair, but in the big/close cases where input is needed from the top guy, I have no confidence that he would even try to be fair.

 

[jbombelli]

How do you fight a fair fight against someone who doesn't fight fairly?