‘Sleeper’ case could torpedo Mueller report

[NightHawkeye]

Noting that they would not have landed another Secretary of State in jail had they done similarly. It's not even arguable.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ate-email-accounts-classified-hillary-clinton

Apples and Oranges. There's nothing illegal about receiving a classified email through an unclassified account. It is however illegal to send out classified info through an unclassified account as Hillary did repeatedly.

 

[whatbogsends]

Apples and Oranges. There's nothing illegal about receiving a classified email through an unclassified account. It is however illegal to send out classified info through an unclassified account as Hillary did repeatedly.

They used their personal emails for government business and had classified material in their emails. It's not apples and oranges, it's simply the amount of apples that differs.

Comparison for how a top level government official is treated versus how you and I would be treated is meaningless. A valid comparison is how Hillary would be treated relative to another person in a similar position.

It's not an issue of "Clinton received special treatment" as much as it is "people in high-level positions routinely receive different treatment than Joe Citizen".

Is it a problem? Yes.

Is it the problem you describe? No.

 

[NightHawkeye]

They used their personal emails for government business and had classified material in their emails. It's not apples and oranges, it's simply the amount of apples that differs.

Comparison for how a top level government official is treated versus how you and I would be treated is meaningless. A valid comparison is how Hillary would be treated relative to another person in a similar position.

It's not an issue of "Clinton received special treatment" as much as it is "people in high-level positions routinely receive different treatment than Joe Citizen".

Is it a problem? Yes.

Is it the problem you describe? No.

It's clear you don't understand about classified information.

It is not a crime to be the recipient of classified information. It is a crime to disseminate classified information (via unclassified channels). Period.

 

[whatbogsends]

It's clear you don't understand about classified information.

It is not a crime to be the recipient of classified information. It is a crime to disseminate classified information (via unclassified channels). Period.

From the article I posted:

"A source familiar with the investigation, which is preliminary and still under review, said about a dozen emails that were sent or received over the course of six years during George W. Bush's administration are now considered confidential or secret. There was nothing found that was top secret."

 

[NightHawkeye]

From the article I posted:

"A source familiar with the investigation, which is preliminary and still under review, said about a dozen emails that were sent or received over the course of six years during George W. Bush's administration are now considered confidential or secret. There was nothing found that was top secret."

Curious that someone added "sent or received" when it was clearly stated early in the article that the classified emails being referred to were "received".

Regardless, Clinton also stripped the classified headings off info and sent out emails which were known by her to be classified. That's a prosecutable offense ... for which you and I would end up behind bars if we had done what Hillary did.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Tsk, tsk... I asked you first.

Still waiting for an answer, @NightHawkeye

 

[KCfromNC]

Your claim is without basis in fact. Manafort was under investigation already. The big question should be why Manafort wasn't charged under the previous administration. As for Cohen, the question is similar. Why wasn't Cohen charged earlier? Cohen's obviously been doing shady stuff for years.

Pro tip - if you're going to assert that an investigation didn't lead to convictions, probably best not to nit pick the details of the convictions the investigation led to. Pick one or the other.

 

[1000Flames]

Still waiting for an answer, @NightHawkeye

I think you're better than waiting for answers from dishonest people.

 

[jgarden]

The executive branch then.

OK. So the president can fire Mueller. Thanks for your insightful response.

I suspect that if "The Donald" were to pull the plug on Mueller, states like New York, Virginia and California would hire him and his whole team to continue their investigations!

Trump and his "motley crew" can also be charged for many of the same offenses under state law - which means the President couldn't fire the investigators and no presidential pardons for his friends!

 

[NightHawkeye]

Still waiting for an answer, @NightHawkeye

What was that important question again?

 

[NightHawkeye]

I suspect that if "The Donald" were to pull the plug on Mueller, states like New York, Virginia and California would hire him and his whole team to continue their investigations!

Trump and his "motley crew" can also be charged for many of the same offenses under state law - which means the President couldn't fire the investigators and no presidential pardons for his friends!

No problem then. Trump's been doing business in New York all his life. I'm sure they won't have any problem prosecuting him, and all of his family, for misdeeds there.

Let me know when they have something. Thanks in advance.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What was that important question again?

post #23

 

[NightHawkeye]

post #23

If you can't be bothered to restate it coherently, then it wasn't very important was it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you can't be bothered to restate it coherently, then it wasn't very important was it?

If you can't be bothered to read it, your "answer" won't be either.

But, to help you in your distress: Why do you think Donald hasn't already fired Mueller?

 

[NightHawkeye]

If you can't be bothered to read it, your "answer" won't be either.

But, to help you in your distress: Why do you think Donald hasn't already fired Mueller?

He can't.

 

[TLK Valentine]

He can't.

In post #6, you said he could.

 

[NightHawkeye]

In post #6, you said he could.

No, in post #6 I was echoing another poster's argument and taking it to its logical conclusion.

I clearly stated in the OP that Mueller was operating outside the boundaries of prescribed law. The other poster took issue with that claim so we followed his trail of logic to its conclusion. The president may technically be in charge of Mueller's investigation but, in fact, it is beyond his control.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, in post #6 I was echoing another poster's argument and taking it to its logical conclusion.

I clearly stated in the OP that Mueller was operating outside the boundaries of prescribed law.

And your error was clearly corrected.

Why do you persist in it?

 

[NightHawkeye]

And your error was clearly corrected.

Why do you persist in it?

Ah, so you believe the president can fire Mueller. Thanks for your opinion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ah, so you believe the president can fire Mueller. Thanks for your opinion.

Not directly, but he can order the AG (Deputy AG, in this case, as the AG -- to Donald's continual rage -- has demonstrated ethics) to do it.... thus firing him indirectly.