1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Oh boy - I wondered what this whole Mar A Lago thing was about

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by HTacianas, Aug 10, 2022.

  1. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +17,925
    Christian
    Married
    I said back then that Clinton should have been prosecuted.

    In fact, I have said it again...in this thread...to you.
     
  2. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +14,435
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Not all information but the most sensitive info. for national security.
    I don't know the specifics of who's involved. One way that has been mentioned here is info. that is protected by legislation. RD Kirk, I think can explain that better than I can. But here's an article with lots of info. written by someone who has been in the government.

    Procedures for declassification of materials are complicated. However, the president has ultimate declassification authority and may declassify anything at any time, subject to certain provisions of the Atomic Energy Act.
    Here’s how government documents are classified to keep sensitive information safe > News > USC Dornsife

    Because the president has the authority to declassify that doesn't mean he has the authority to just skip the procedures needed to declassify. First, a written memo signed by the president protects both the nation and the president. I think most people can see how.
     
  3. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +14,435
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Vox - By Ian Millhiser Oct 22, 2019, 8:10am EDT
    Last week, Congress received a brief, nine-page report from the State Department, which summarizes the department’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account to conduct work business while she was secretary of state. The report can be fairly summarized in two sentences: She shouldn’t have done that. But it wasn’t that big of a deal.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  4. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +14,435
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Are you saying that the president doesn't have the authority to see all classified information? He can be stopped from obtaining that information?
    How can he declassify what he can't see?
     
  5. Sparagmos

    Sparagmos Well-Known Member

    +7,202
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    What does that mean and how does it relate to what Trump did?
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 2
    • List
  6. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +17,925
    Christian
    Married
    No, the president would get the information he asked for. If the Director of the CIA asked any questions at all, it would be to make sure he provided everything the president intended to ask for.
     
  7. DaisyDay

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +13,826
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
    Trump never committed this particular crime, therefore he never committed any crime at all? Why do you people consider this worth repeating ad nauseum?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  8. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +17,925
    Christian
    Married
    That was just a big lie on Trump's part.

    Obama did not take anything with him...the National Archives re-iterated that fact just last week. Obama's organization has earmarked a large block of documents, but they are all in the Archives.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2022
  9. durangodawood

    durangodawood Dis Member

    +12,795
    United States
    Seeker
    Single
    City boy whos family could afford drivers.
     
  10. DaisyDay

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +13,826
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
    Surprisingly he does have a driver’s license although I would be astounded if he’s driven himself anywhere in the last fifty years.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  11. BPPLEE

    BPPLEE Well-Known Member

    +1,063
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    It wasn't a big deal because of who did it.
     
  12. Sparagmos

    Sparagmos Well-Known Member

    +7,202
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    We’re talking about something that occurred after he left office. That wasn’t five years ago.
     
  13. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +14,435
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Is that all you have to say? There's your proof that she was investigated again by the Trump admin. who wrote a report, and made a determination that didn't change anything.
     
  14. Valletta

    Valletta Well-Known Member

    +1,246
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    The FBI could have had the documents anytime they wanted. They asked President Trump if he would put a larger lock on the storage room and he did. But they decided to break in, show the American people force, show that they can do the same to you if they don't like your politics.
     
  15. SimplyMe

    SimplyMe Senior Veteran

    +7,345
    Christian
    Married
    Yes, you did. For just one example, you make the claim, "it would have been completely justifiable to throw her in prison for the rest of her life." There is zero evidence to support this -- it is purely speculation. Even if you suppose that Comey should have prosecuted, it wouldn't have come with anything close to that level of punishment.

    There is plenty more in your post that is pure assumption with no evidence to support your claims.

    I believe that is what I stated, that she used her private email. So not sure what you are saying that I am incorrect about.

    It is also worth noting that while the State Department investigation found Sec. Clinton at fault for using a private email, it noted that it was a departmental problem and previous secretaries had similar issues; such as Sec. Powell (her predecessor) who also used a private email. Odd that we never hear people want him investigated for his use of a private server (and potential classified information sent on that private server).


    And that appears to include you. You do realize the State Department doesn't delete emails, instead, they archive emails after people leave the State Department -- they are required to retain them. As such, the FBI could request those emails and compare them against the emails from Sec. Clinton.

    I'll agree, it is supposed to be, that doesn't mean it always is. In this case, reports of the investigation state the emails were not marked as Classified. In fact, from the reports, none of the emails had Classifications headers, as is required. There were a few, apparently three per the FBI, that were marked with a "(c)" to indicate classified information and that was the only indication that the information was classified -- easy to miss, particularly if you didn't know what that (c) meant (as Sec. Clinton claimed she did not).

    The bulk of the emails with classified information, 2,093, were found to have retroactively marked classified -- meaning they were not classified at the time they were sent. Additionally, there was an email chain talking of a NY Times article on drones; allegedly the email discussion only spoke of the information available in the article but, because the CIA claims drones are classified, those are all marked as containing classified information -- despite the information being publicly available through numerous non-governmental sources.

    So, no, it typically was not marked -- based on the reports from actual investigators, both at the State Department and the FBI.

    Except that most of the briefings you are talking about, such as movement of foreign officials, would be in person briefings -- not sent over email. And, again, you don't need to "estimate" or suppose anything; the numbers are available.

    And, actually, I was wrong. In reviewing the information, the order to delete the emails predated the FBI order, by quite a bit. Instead, when she was preparing to archive older emails for the State Department in 2014, roughly 30,000 emails were marked as personal correspondence and she gave the order to have them deleted. This was verified by the investigation.

    The Server Administrator did not delete the emails in a timely manner and only got around to deleting them after Congress, for the Benghazi investigation, requested the records; so prior to the FBI requesting them.

    What is more interesting is that the FBI recovered many of these deleted emails, though they have never (to my knowledge) ever stated the exact number recovered.

    So how did the FBI recover some of the deleted emails? Regardless, again, the FBI had access to "the other side" -- the servers where the emails sent to Hillary were sent from. Again, the State Department is required to retain emails -- so the FBI could go back and identify emails sent from the State Department servers. They had executed search warrants to get the emails sent from those that worked with Sec. Clinton. The FBI allegedly found no additional work related emails that Sec. Clinton did not turn over -- or it would have been something else Director Comey would have listed.

    So why did she turn over hundreds of emails that contained classified information, if she only turned over emails that were "very insignificant and inconsequential nature." This is pure projection on your part and not supported by any evidence, instead, the evidence that has been made public shows this is not true.

    Again, the FBI never accused her of withholding pertinent emails -- that is something that Republicans did (but with no evidence for the claim). Again, they could check State Department servers, they recovered many of the deleted emails, yet the FBI never accused Sec. Clinton of withholding evidence. If she had, that would have been a crime they could, and would, have prosecuted.

    You mean besides the two articles I linked? The fact that it is easily verifiable that AG Sessions appointed John Huber to investigate Hillary, and he publicly stated that he did it at Trump's order? And why would the FBI raid her house, what grounds would they have used to get the search warrant?




    And yet, that is what was reported -- just three of the documents were properly marked with classified headers. Again, most of the emails that had classified information seem to have been classified only after the emails were sent. Some were like the drone emails, where they were discussing information from news reports but, despite not getting the information from classified sources, was technically classified information. But the majority of emails that discussed classified information were not marked properly (other than three), if at all, or were just marked with a "(c)" to indicate that information was classified.

    I'm not asking for classified information, which you should know. That doesn't preclude you from linking to stories that talk about the FBI investigation and the results of what they found. Did Dir. Comey have to divulge classified information when he gave his reports on the email investigation, particularly the part where he claimed she technically broke the law?

    Who can declassify documents depends on who classified it. In the case of nuclear secrets, it appears to be Congress (The Atomic Energy Acts of 1946 and 1954).

    I'm not saying he wasn't President when he received them, I'm saying he wasn't president for the last year and a half. Since he was no longer President he had no reason to be holding onto Presidential records, much less classified information.

    You make all these assumptions and are trying to rationalize them. Rather than continuing to make assumptions you should actually look at what has been reported, what the FBI released about the investigation -- what was found. That is our difference, I'm trying to work off of what was actually found by investigators, you are going based on your own suppositions.


    I'm going by both Huber and Comey. Comey did not say "they wouldn't" -- and it is more interesting that Comey was not the one who would make that determination, that belongs to the DoJ and the prosecutor overseeing the case. Comey can definitely send his recommendations but it isn't his decision.

    Instead, the DoJ determined, prior to Comey discussing his conclusions, that the evidence did not exist to successfully prosecute Sec. Clinton -- and that is what Comey claimed. If the current FBI Director came out and stated these things against Trump, you'd argue that he was "poisoning the well" by offering his opinion that Trump had broken the law while at the same time saying they couldn't get a conviction despite the evidence.

    Again, the DoJ determined that they were not going to prosecute Hillary, that the evidence would not support getting a guilty verdict (and this is what Comey stated). Now, you could write that off as "bias," that Obama's DoJ was not going to prosecute Hillary. The issue is, Huber then does the same thing -- he looks at that same evidence that "proved Hillary broke the law" (per Comey) and also decides not to prosecute. If she was that obviously guilty, as you've claimed, and broke laws that should have put her in jail for life -- why would Huber not have prosecuted, why would he have not done his job (which AG Sessions appointed him to)? The evidence does not support your claims and suppositions.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  16. DaisyDay

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +13,826
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
  17. BPPLEE

    BPPLEE Well-Known Member

    +1,063
    United States
    Christian
    Married
  18. Hank77

    Hank77 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +14,435
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Right now are you OK with the whole world having access to all the documents that Trump had at Mar-a-Lago? All, 35 boxes plus the leather binder/? of documents?
     
  19. DaisyDay

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +13,826
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
    What "too"? He did it before Obama was on the scene. She was investigated, several times, while he got a free pass.
     
  20. BPPLEE

    BPPLEE Well-Known Member

    +1,063
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I don't know what was in them. Doesn't seem like the whole world had access to Trump's basement. But a lot of people can access a private server. Isn't that what happened to the DNC? Emails published on Wikileaks?
     
Loading...