Justice Dept. Issues 40 Subpoenas in a Week, Expanding Its Jan. 6 Inquiry

[Tom 1]

Clinton destroyed evidence, is that cooperation?

Why the double standard? Clinton claims her lawyers only removed personal emails, yet you simply ignore that and automatically assume guilt. When you see anything about Trump, your reaction is the exact opposite, to the extent that you simply ignore anything else indicating unlawful or negligent acts, or pretend it isn’t real. Why?

 

[disciple Clint]

That is true. Yet once again he lost his executive privilege with the loss of his presidential position, and now you see the investigations galore. Again, the dire need to retain that bullet proof vest is reason he had no problem with his VP being hung. That says a lot about the nature of the person when it comes to flouting the law, and a long history of it.

Executive privilege is an issue for the courts to decide and once again making accusations without proof such as "flouting the law" is at the minimum unfair.

 

[disciple Clint]

Why the double standard? Clinton claims her lawyers only removed personal emails, yet you simply ignore that and automatically assume guilt. When you see anything about Trump, your reaction is the exact opposite, to the extent that you simply ignore anything else indicating unlawful or negligent acts, or pretend it isn’t real. Why?

There is no question that she destroyed evidence again google it and learn.

 

[Tom 1]

There is no question that she destroyed evidence again google it and learn.

Her lawyers claim only personal emails were removed. You can’t prove that isn’t the case, Google can’t prove it either. You just believe it, well, because it’s Clinton. When it’s Trump, and the evidence is overwhelming, you pretend it isn’t real. It’s no skin off my nose, but you should at least reflect on that for your own benefit.

 

[cow451]

Schadenfreude!

Thank you. My allergies are bad today.

 

[disciple Clint]

Her lawyers claim only personal emails were removed. You can’t prove that isn’t the case, Google can’t prove it either. You just believe it, well, because it’s Clinton. When it’s Trump, and the evidence is overwhelming, you pretend it isn’t real. It’s no skin off my nose, but you should at least reflect on that for your own benefit.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...nton_has_admitted_to_destroying_evidence.html
House Oversight Committee: Did Hillary Clinton or Staff Destroy Email Evidence Under Subpoena?

 

[Tom 1]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...nton_has_admitted_to_destroying_evidence.html
House Oversight Committee: Did Hillary Clinton or Staff Destroy Email Evidence Under Subpoena?

You should read that through, particularly given that you dismiss any and all evidence of Trump’s various dodgy doings, on the basis of some mythical notion of absolute proof.

Your link, from 6 years ago (strange that the questions raised failed to result in any actual proof in the interim, or don’t you think so?) lists various assertions which are then qualified with statements making it clear these are questions about what the findings of the investigation mean:

‘…a sequence of events that may amount to obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence by Secretary Clinton’

And

“In light of this information, the Department should investigate and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statutes that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation.”

Do you see the problem with offering this as proof? Do you see the further problem with considering this raising of questions to be proof, while as the same time immediately dismissing anything to do with what Trump has been up to without even looking into it?

 

[disciple Clint]

You should read that through, particularly given that you dismiss any and all evidence of Trump’s various dodgy doings, on the basis of some mythical notion of absolute proof.

Your link, from 6 years ago (strange that the questions raised failed to result in any actual proof in the interim, or don’t you think so?) lists various assertions which are then qualified with statements making it clear these are questions about what the findings of the investigation mean:

‘…a sequence of events that may amount to obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence by Secretary Clinton’

And

“In light of this information, the Department should investigate and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statutes that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation.”

Do you see the problem with offering this as proof? Do you see the further problem with considering this raising of questions to be proof, while as the same time immediately dismissing anything to do with what Trump has been up to without even looking into it?

I see a problem with some people not wanting to accept established facts. The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org
Judicial Watch: At Least 18 Classified Emails Found on Weiner’s Laptop - Judicial Watch

 

[Say it aint so]

Executive privilege is an issue for the courts to decide and once again making accusations without proof such as "flouting the law" is at the minimum unfair.

And Executive Privilege has been decided.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday brought a formal end to former President Donald Trump’s request to block the release of White House records sought by the Democratic-led congressional panel investigating last year’s deadly attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters.

The court’s decision to formally reject Trump’s appeal follows its Jan. 19 order that led to the documents being handed over to the House of Representatives investigative committee by the federal agency that stores government and historical records.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Dec. 9 upheld a lower court ruling that Trump had no basis to challenge President Joe Biden’s decision to allow the records to be handed over to the House of Representatives select committee. Trump then appealed to the Supreme Court

Trump and his allies have waged an ongoing legal battle with the House select committee seeking to block access to documents and witnesses. Trump has sought to invoke a legal principle known as executive privilege, which protects the confidentially of some internal White House communications, a stance rejected by lower courts

And flouting the law. Trump has had two entities shut down for violating laws regarding fraud. Trump also in the past has violated discrimination laws, and worker rights laws. So yes, flouting the law throughout his history.

 

[Tom 1]

I see a problem with some people not wanting to accept established facts. The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org
Judicial Watch: At Least 18 Classified Emails Found on Weiner’s Laptop - Judicial Watch

Once again you are posting links that prove my point, not yours. As it plainly says in both of these articles, Clinton and her lawyers claim that only personal emails were deleted. Is that true? Whether it is or not, you have decided it can’t be, and you are unable to explain why, or provide any evidence. Where in any of the links you have posted is the evidence that Clinton’s legal team deleted anything other than personal emails? It’s not there, but somehow you are convinced that it is.

On the contrary, despite ample evidence of Trump’s illegal and extremely careless handling of far more sensitive information, you simply refuse to even think about it. How do you explain the double standard?

 

[Tom 1]

I see a problem with some people not wanting to accept established facts. The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org
Judicial Watch: At Least 18 Classified Emails Found on Weiner’s Laptop - Judicial Watch

What do you really think about this?

If someone in my team, when I had teams, violated a basic rule like a using personal email for work, then there would be a disciplinary procedure. Comey’s conclusion is the same approach any organisation would take:
From one of the articles you linked to/

‘The FBI probe focused on whether Clinton or her staff violated federal laws governing the handling of classified information, and whether foreign powers or hostile actors hacked into her private server, which was located at her home in New York.

FBI Director James Comey on July 5 announced that although Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless” in handling classified information, the FBI did not find evidence that their actions were intentional. He declined to pursue criminal charges’

For some reason you simply dismiss this out of hand, while also claiming that the Mueller report, despite it’s conclusions that the Trump campaign was ‘receptive’ to Russian meddling in the election in Trump’s favour, and that there was sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice for a legal case to be made, but that Mueller saw pursuing this as outside of his remit, you continually (and falsely) claim the report entirely exonerates Trump.

If, on the other hand, someone in one of my teams had decided one day to take a load of confidential information to their home, in cardboard boxes, and then refused to give it back, that would go beyond a simple disciplinary matter. Personally I would question that person’s sanity.

You genuinely can’t see any difference here? You don’t see the double standard you are using?

 

[Mayzoo]

Exactly. So if any of the information is true, and it is being leaked, by now Garland should have gone before the American people and said although he wants to convict Trump that he will not stand for leaks of such classified information and he has launched an investigation to find and prosecute the source. That is his responsibility under his oath of office, but it's not happening.

I want to make sure I understand you correctly:

1. Classified information should be kept in an appropriate, secure location where it can be viewed/accessed ONLY by authorized personnel, correct?
2. When someone fails to adhere to established norms/laws for controlling classified information they should be prosecuted?

If you agree to the above, then we are in agreement.

However, I also happen to believe that those with money (Clinton and Trump) have almost nil chance of facing any legal repercussions from their actions. As Trump said, he could shoot someone in broad daylight on Fifth Ave and he does not believe he would lose votes (I believe that was his quote see below). I don't believe he would either because people with money and power just get a pass much of the time. Should it be this way? No.

Donald Trump: 'I Could ... Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters'

 

[Tom 1]

Exactly. So if any of the information is true, and it is being leaked, by now Garland should have gone before the American people and said although he wants to convict Trump that he will not stand for leaks of such classified information and he has launched an investigation to find and prosecute the source. That is his responsibility under his oath of office, but it's not happening.

At some stage you’ll need to accept that the real world doesn’t operate in accordance with your fantasies about it.

 

[Valletta]

I want to make sure I understand you correctly:

1. Classified information should be kept in an appropriate, secure location where it can be viewed/accessed ONLY by authorized personnel, correct?
2. When someone fails to adhere to established norms/laws for controlling classified information they should be prosecuted?

If you agree to the above, then we are in agreement.

There are various rules relating to classified information that are violated far too many times. I can't recall anyone being prosecuted for simple mishandling of such information. I can think of two cases that I believed should have been prosecuted, Hillary Clinton had top secret information on an unsecured server and the server appeared to have been hacked. After a subpoena was issued Hillary had her staff destroy information. Another was when Sandy Berger who had previously been part of the Clinton administration stuffed classified documents down his pants but was caught sneaking those documents out of a secured area. All they did was suspend his security clearance for three years. In both those cases it was clearly the intent of the individuals to violate the law. This is a different situation, it's not about paperwork, paperwork that Trump declassified. It is simply about trying to prosecute Trump because he upsets the corrupt government establishment, remember they were going to prosecute Trump on Russian collusion, that turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Then they were going to prosecute Trump on taxes. Now it's on papers. My point was that if Garland really believes the records are classified then it is he who has mishandled classified information.

 

[NxNW]

Hillary Clinton had top secret information on an unsecured server and the server appeared to have been hacked.

Since when do appearances have legal bearing? I've never seen evidence it was hacked. In fact, it was more secure than the government-provided server, which is why Powell recommended she use her own.

 

[Mayzoo]

There are various rules relating to classified information that are violated far too many times. I can't recall anyone being prosecuted for simple mishandling of such information. I can think of two cases that I believed should have been prosecuted, Hillary Clinton had top secret information on an unsecured server and the server appeared to have been hacked. After a subpoena was issued Hillary had her staff destroy information. Another was when Sandy Berger who had previously been part of the Clinton administration stuffed classified documents down his pants but was caught sneaking those documents out of a secured area. All they did was suspend his security clearance for three years. In both those cases it was clearly the intent of the individuals to violate the law. This is a different situation, it's not about paperwork, paperwork that Trump declassified. It is simply about trying to prosecute Trump because he upsets the corrupt government establishment, remember they were going to prosecute Trump on Russian collusion, that turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Then they were going to prosecute Trump on taxes. Now it's on papers. My point was that if Garland really believes the records are classified then it is he who has mishandled classified information.

An example of "simple mishandling" is returning a document to the wrong folder.

Removing documents from the secure location they are designated/logged to be in, without permission and proper documentation is not simple mishandling. If someone removes your items from your home, without your permission, that is not simple mishandling of your property, it is theft.

 

[disciple Clint]

And Executive Privilege has been decided.

And flouting the law. Trump has had two entities shut down for violating laws regarding fraud. Trump also in the past has violated discrimination laws, and worker rights laws. So yes, flouting the law throughout his history.

Show me the record of Trump being convicted of any violations of the law. Just to save you time there are none.

 

[disciple Clint]

Once again you are posting links that prove my point, not yours. As it plainly says in both of these articles, Clinton and her lawyers claim that only personal emails were deleted. Is that true? Whether it is or not, you have decided it can’t be, and you are unable to explain why, or provide any evidence. Where in any of the links you have posted is the evidence that Clinton’s legal team deleted anything other than personal emails? It’s not there, but somehow you are convinced that it is.

On the contrary, despite ample evidence of Trump’s illegal and extremely careless handling of far more sensitive information, you simply refuse to even think about it. How do you explain the double standard?

I see clear evidence, I have no idea what it is not clear to some people.

 

[disciple Clint]

What do you really think about this?

If someone in my team, when I had teams, violated a basic rule like a using personal email for work, then there would be a disciplinary procedure. Comey’s conclusion is the same approach any organisation would take:
From one of the articles you linked to/

‘The FBI probe focused on whether Clinton or her staff violated federal laws governing the handling of classified information, and whether foreign powers or hostile actors hacked into her private server, which was located at her home in New York.

FBI Director James Comey on July 5 announced that although Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless” in handling classified information, the FBI did not find evidence that their actions were intentional. He declined to pursue criminal charges’

For some reason you simply dismiss this out of hand, while also claiming that the Mueller report, despite it’s conclusions that the Trump campaign was ‘receptive’ to Russian meddling in the election in Trump’s favour, and that there was sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice for a legal case to be made, but that Mueller saw pursuing this as outside of his remit, you continually (and falsely) claim the report entirely exonerates Trump.

If, on the other hand, someone in one of my teams had decided one day to take a load of confidential information to their home, in cardboard boxes, and then refused to give it back, that would go beyond a simple disciplinary matter. Personally I would question that person’s sanity.

You genuinely can’t see any difference here? You don’t see the double standard you are using?

Obviously I only see what is in the articles and reports but I am certain that some people can twist almost anything to show almost anything they might want to see.

 

[Tom 1]

Obviously I only see what is in the articles and reports

That’s blatantly untrue. You claimed you have evidence Clinton ‘destroyed’ classified information, then claimed that the articles you linked to prove that. They don’t. So what are you basing your claims on?