Just Because The Espionage Act Has Been Abused For Political Purposes, It Does Not Mean The Trump Case Is Politically Motivated
from the actual-experts-weigh-in dept
The federal court-authorized search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate has brought renewed attention to the obscure but infamous law known as the Espionage Act of 1917. A section of the law was listed as one of three potential violations under Justice Department investigation.
The Espionage Act has historically been employed most often by law-and-order conservatives. But the biggest uptick in its use occurred during the Obama administration, which used it as the hammer of choice for national security leakers and whistleblowers. Regardless of whom it is used to prosecute, it unfailingly prompts consternation and outrage.
We are both attorneys who specialize in and teach national security law. While navigating the sound and fury over the Trump search, here are a few things to note about the Espionage Act.
Espionage Act seldom pertains to espionage
When you hear “espionage,” you may think spies and international intrigue. One portion of the act – 18 U.S.C. section 794 – does relate to spying for foreign governments, for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
That aspect of the law is best exemplified by the convictions of Jonathan Pollard in 1987, for spying for and providing top-secret classified information to Israel; former Central Intelligence Agency officer Aldrich Ames in 1994, for being a double agent for the Russian KGB; and, in 2002, former FBI agent Robert Hanssen, who was caught selling U.S. secrets to the Soviet Union and Russia over a span of more than 20 years. All three received life sentences.
But spy cases are rare. More typically, as in the Trump investigation, the act applies to the unauthorized gathering, possessing or transmitting of certain sensitive government information.
Transmitting can mean moving materials from an authorized to an unauthorized location – many types of sensitive government information must be maintained in secure facilities. It can also apply to refusing a government demand for its return. All of these prohibited activities fall under the separate and more commonly applied section of the act – 18 U.S.C. section 793.
A violation does not require an intention to aid a foreign power
Willful unauthorized possession of information that, if obtained by a foreign government, might harm U.S. interests is generally enough to trigger a possible sentence of 10 years.
Current claims by Trump supporters of the seemingly innocuous nature of the conduct at issue – simply possessing sensitive government documents – miss the point. The driver of the Department of Justice’s concern under Section 793 is the sensitive content and the connection to national defense information, known as “NDI.”
One of the most famous Espionage Act cases, known as “Wikileaks,” in which Julian Assange was indicted for obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents in 2010, is not about leaks to help foreign governments. It concerned the unauthorized soliciting, obtaining, possessing and publishing of sensitive information that might be of help to a foreign nation if disclosed.
Two recent senior Democratic administration officials – Sandy Berger, national security adviser during the Clinton administration, and David Petraeus, CIA director under during the Obama administration – each pleaded guilty to misdemeanors under the threat of Espionage Act prosecution.
Berger took home a classified document – in his sock – at the end of his tenure. Petraeus shared classified information with an unauthorized person for reasons having nothing to do with a foreign government.
The act is not just about classified information
Some of the documents the FBI sought and found in the Trump search were designated “top secret” or “top secret-sensitive compartmented information.”
Both classifications tip far to the serious end of the sensitivity spectrum.
Top secret-sensitive compartmented information is reserved for information that would truly be damaging to the U.S. if it fell into foreign hands.
One theory floated by Trump defenders is that by simply handling the materials as president, Trump could have effectively declassified them. It actually doesn’t work that way – presidential declassification requires an override of Executive Order 13526, must be in writing, and must have occurred while Trump was still president – not after. If they had been declassified, they should have been marked as such.
And even assuming the documents were declassified, which does not appear to be the case, Trump is still in the criminal soup. The Espionage Act applies to all national defense information, or NDI, of which classified materials are only a portion. This kind of information includes a vast array of sensitive information including military, energy, scientific, technological, infrastructure and national disaster risks. By law and regulation, NDI materials may not be publicly released and must be handled as sensitive.
The public can’t judge a case based on classified information
Cases involving classified information or NDI are nearly impossible to referee from the cheap seats.
None of us will get to see the documents at issue, nor should we. Why?
Because they are classified.
Even if we did, we would not be able to make an informed judgment of their significance because what they relate to is likely itself classified – we’d be making judgments in a void.
And even if a judge in an Espionage Act case had access to all the information needed to evaluate the nature and risks of the materials, it wouldn’t matter. The fact that documents are classified or otherwise regulated as sensitive defense information is all that matters.
Historically, Espionage Act cases have been occasionally political and almost always politicized. Enacted at the beginning of U.S. involvement in World War I in 1917, the act was largely designed to make interference with the draft illegal and prevent Americans from supporting the enemy.
But it was immediately used to target immigrants, labor organizers and left-leaning radicals. It was a tool of Cold War anti-communist politicians like Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 1940s and 1950s. The case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, executed for passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, is the most prominent prosecution of that era.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the act was used against peace activists, including Pentagon Paper whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. Since Sept. 11, 2001, officials have used the act against whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. Because of this history, the act is often assailed for chilling First Amendment political speech and activities.
The Espionage Act is serious and politically loaded business. Its breadth, the potential grave national security risks involved and the lengthy potential prison term have long sparked political conflict. These cases are controversial and complicated in ways that counsel patience and caution before reaching conclusions.
Joseph Ferguson, Co-Director, National Security and Civil Rights Program, Loyola University Chicago and Thomas A. Durkin, Distinguished Practitioner in Residence, Loyola University Chicago
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article
Filed Under: classified information, donald trump, espionage act, national defense information, spying
Comments on “Just Because The Espionage Act Has Been Abused For Political Purposes, It Does Not Mean The Trump Case Is Politically Motivated”
Lostinlodos, I think you need to read this. Looks like your godking is justifiably in big doo-doo.
Re:
Unfortunately he’s way too busy defiantly taking an L in another thread.
Re:
What is very interesting about Trump storing classified documents in his home is that through all of his career every aide of his has reflected on him being borderline dyslexic and unwilling to read anything which doesn’t have his name in it.
Yet he bothers to grab a bunch of ultra secret documents and cart them home?
Here’s my question – do we trust Trump not to sell copies of top secret documents to foreign powers as long as enough money on a swiss account is involved?
Re: Re:
That’s not accurate, actually. Trump’s illegal offshore account is in the Cayman Islands. Oops…
Re: Re:
I think the reasons are much more mundane: His narcissism, he has on more than one occasion waved secret documents in the face of dinner guest. There is also the aspect that the documents may contain things that can be viewed as embarrassing for him in some fashion – imagined or real.
Re: Re:
Regardless of the rest of the question, the answer is no.
Re: Re: Re: He can always be trusted to be self-centered and horrible
Depends on the second half, if someone asked me ‘Do we trust Trump to care more about his own ego and personal comfort than the lives of anyone around him?’ I’d have to give that a resounding ‘Yes!’
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: RE:
If you think Trump was the only ex-president to take documents, like they’re purporting, he was not the only one, every ex-president did the same thing. This is a witch hunt to stop Trump which has backed fire spectacle bad for the Democratic, look no further than that thing called Lizzy Cheney. The Public knows what this is, the gullible will make any excuses.
Re: Re: Re:
Who are “they”? Elaborate please, because I haven’t seen anyone say that. At issue isn’t that ex-presidents have taken documents with them – the issue is that Trump refused to return documents when requested.
She’s a republican, not a democrat. It’s also telling that you call her a thing, I guess you can’t really stand people who actually have principles.
Yeah, they make excuses and defend the indefensible at every turn because acknowledging that Trump is a grifter and a conman also means admitting they are gullible idiots.
Re: Re: Re:
If you think Trump was the only ex-president to take documents, like they’re purporting, he was not the only one, every ex-president did the same thing.
Right, he’s just the first one not to give them back.
Re: Re: Re:2
Obama and Bush (W) both hold classified records in their libraries. According to the national archives documentation.
He is, I believe, the first not to turn anything over to a senatorial board. But I also believe he’s the first former president to have been asked to do so.
For whatever all the reasons are, this is all unpreecedenteded.
Let’s just all watch it play out.
Re: Re: Re:3
Obama and Bush (W) both hold classified records in their libraries. According to the national archives documentation.
Oh, I didn’t know the next phase of ‘they planted evidence’ would turn into ‘the room was a presidential library.’
For whatever all the reasons are, this is all unpreecedenteded.
So then not at all like Bush & Obama?
You just threw that in for what, laughs?
Re: Re: Re:4
Three things
What does he have? A few here jumped to nuclear. Possible. Or just as easily, staff reports or meeting notes.
Why does he have them. Nothing exists as a blanket requirement that classified documents cannot move. If he is, was, cleared to have them. The change of presidency doesn’t negate his current clearance. So he may well be holding them legally.
What is is intent. Sure, there’s conspiracy theories about bargaining and sales. And how many officials are reptilians? I lost track.
Let the investigation play out.
Re: Re: Re:5
No, because he doesn’t own the documents per the PRA and he should have turned them over when he left the office.
Here’s is the highlights from the PRA:
* Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.
* Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.
* Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
* Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
* Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.
* Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.
* Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.
* Establishes a process by which the President may restrict and the public may obtain access to these records after the President leaves office; specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years.
* Codifies the process by which former and incumbent Presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege prior to public release of records by NARA (which had formerly been governed by Executive order 13489).
* Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489.
* Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts: any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account. (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)
* Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records.
You are sure showing signs of getting more and more stupid.
Re: Re: Re:6
And… there are as-need exceptions baked into records law as well.
We don’t yet know anything more than the guesswork of a few government officials and the various news sources. I’ll wait. If he broke the law. And he’s found guilty, then he should be sentenced by the judge.
Re: Re: Re:7
Such exceptions would extend to a few documents, not boxes and boxes full of them.
Re: Re: Re:8
Lost is about four shit excuses away from literally grasping at straws.
Re: Re: Re:9
Well, timely! I’m sitting here looking at the bag of EZ straw I just used to cover some grass seed this afternoon. Lmao. You hit it perfectly.
Re: Re: Re:8
That’s up to the investigators to decide.
Re: Re: Re:9
No it’s not, because the relevant statutes already did.
Re: Re: Re:7
Here are the laws involved, what exceptions do you have in mind?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
Also if you’re interested in learning what’s going on rather than blindly defending Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekefMUICOGo
Re: Re: Re:3
Well, presidential libraries are part of the National Archives and Records Administration, while Mar-a-Lago isn’t.
Re: Re: Re:
The term you’re looking for is “former President”. As unfortunate as the fact may be, Trump didn’t die in office.
Re:
I don’t even really like the man. Maybe, move on with the whole godthing nonsense?
Re: Re:
I don’t even really like the man.
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
The post above by the Anonymous Coward troll has been flagged as Anonymous Coward spam.
Re: Re: Re:2
The post above by the Anonymous Coward troll has been flagged as real Anonymous Coward spam.
Re: Re: Re:2
The post above by the anonymized LostInLoDOS troll has been flagged as real Anonymous Coward spam.
Re: Re: Re:3
Actually, I think that’s probably the hypocritical DBA Phillip K. Dickhead rather than Lostcause. I’ve also flagged him, though.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
The four posts above have been flagged as four sociopaths with waaaaaaay too much time on their hands.
Re: Re: Re:5
I see you’re still lying in the namefield, DBA Phillip K. Dickcheese. Flagged.
Re: Re: Re:3
I only post logged in. I stand by my idea of keeping messages open and trackable.
Re: Re: Re:4
Now if only that led to you having a modicum of restraint or pause for thought when you frantically hammer your keyboard in chest-thumping defense for poor, poor Republicans who had their feelings hurt.
Re: Re: Re:
[Citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:2
If you can’t click on LostInLoDOS’ name to view his past comments, I can’t help you. I don’t work at a computer tech company, so I can’t take over your browser to point you at the relevant content.
Re: Re: Re:3
Nowhere did I ever say trump should not be held to the law.
Re: Re: Re:4
And nowhere have you admitted that Hillary shouldn’t be prosecuted for actions that were legal when she undertook them.
Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
I chose the one with a chance that wasn’t Clinton.
Re: Re: Re:2
How does that Sanskrit proverb go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Nice going disproving your assertions that you don’t like Trump.
Re: Re: Re:3
Since I’ve said that myself, I nod and agree. Anyone but Clinton. Just like the anyone but trump people.
Re: Re: Re:4
The big difference between you and the “anyone but Trump” is they’re not screaming for him to face sanctions greater than those he earned by his own actions.
Re: Re: Re:5
I did no such thing.
I hope they (anyone) find something, anything, somewhere, anywhere, to hit her with.
That’s extremely different than saying “…greater than those [s]he earned…”
Re: Re: Re:6
They’ve been doing it for the entire time Trump was in office.
Even with the decks stacked in their favor, they couldn’t pull it off.
Failing to deliver on the wall thing is something you consistently quibble with as something that was never going to actually happen the way Trump’s critics claimed he’d promised. Fair, but the failure to go after Hilary Clinton is nothing short of a huge fucking joke. The same way your boys constantly scream that the election was stolen, despite given multiple opportunities to put some substantiated evidence up front that isn’t simply pointing a trembling finger and going “but but but”.
Re: Re: Re:7
except the election wasn’t stolen.
Not in they way republicans claim anyway.
There’s no evidence of result-changing level fraud.
From my understanding, the few cases of ballot dumping resulted in the ballots being carefully vetted, verified, and then counted. So there were no lost republican votes in trashed ballot dumps.
There’s no evidence Russia, China, or any other country hacked into our machines and changed votes.
And while no real investigation was done, even if the Philadelphia votes were back-dated after midnight, it wouldn’t have changed the results as Republicans claim(ed). If anything, it would have resulted in republican illicit votes. Since trump didn’t win in those counties, it’s meaningless as to the results.
And a quick look at maps of voting history shows that even if Georgia had “missing” or “lost” votes not counted, the few districts that show below 100% counted are blue. Finding the “missing” votes, if they exist, are just more democrat votes.
And while I deeply believe faithless electors are treasonous scum that should be drawn and quartered, NONE of the contested electors were faithless (as far as I can tell).
Anyone still clinging to fraud is delusional.
Re: Re: Re:8
No more than anyone clinging to the idea that Hillary committed a crime regarding her emails.
How does that saying about government surveillance go?
Something about “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?”
Is that your right shoe I see on your left foot? … and am I talking to Mr Trump or Mr Government? I forget…
How to make a post on tech dirt?
I want to make a post.. But i don’t know how to do it.
Re:
You… just did?
If you mean having them post an article you wrote you could try contacting them via the ‘Help & Feedback’ link at the bottom of the page to see if they’d be agreeable to letting you do that I suppose.
"a Creative Commons license"
That’s meaningless.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#which-cc
Under section 3(1)(C) of the license, one must “indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License”. I suggest to include a link to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ , but saying “under CC BY-ND 4.0 license”, or similar, is also possible.
Re: The Conversation reuse guidelines
Yes, I did notice that The Conversation claims “By copying the HTML below, you will be adhering to all our guidelines”. So it’s not like they’re likely to sue for copyright infringement (or win in court if they did). However, their advice is incorrect. By following that advice, reusers are relying on some implied license, not on the semi-free Creative Commons license they think they’re using. So it’s best to actually follow the public license.
Re: Re:
We literally used the text they provided us.
Re:
If only there were a link two words earlier that would have allowed you to find out which specific Creative Commons license it was published under in significantly less time than it took you to write two posts complaining about it.
To put it bluntly: Regardless of whatever problems there are with the Espionage Act, under the law as it stands, Donald Trump is in some deep shit.
Re:
And while he might not have handed documents to other powers, his desire to gloat & look important has shown he’ll burn an asset to look cool.
Re: Re:
Man, might is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I mean, we have the photo of him with two Russian operatives in the White House.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
“Man?” Who even says that anymore? So gender biased.
And seriously–“the Russian’s” is such a distraction away from the total freefall of American empire, its pathetic.
Re: Re: Re:2
lol, you seriously can’t do any better than this?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yeah, man, I can, man.
Re: Re:
“And while he might not have handed documents to other powers…”
What else would he have done with them? For all of his career every documentary about Trump at some point brings up that he’s reluctant to read any form of documents which doesn’t have his name in it and his recalcitrance to reading any of his white house briefing material. Some suggest he’s borderline dyslexic.
Yet he carted home top secret documents to store in his safe?
We could argue he’s narcissist enough he thinks it’s “cool” to have that sort of stuff in his safe and sure, once you strip away the wrinkled face and malice he’s fermented for half a century what you end up with is a petulant entitled child. I won’t call it beyond him to violate law and rules just for shitz’n’giggles.
But there are plenty of reasons to look at Trump as an agent of foreign powers.
Someone offered to stand as guarantee to Deutsche Bank in order for one of their departments to come up with a 300 million USD loan to him in 1998 when his credit rating was similar to that of a homeless crack addict.
And he’s persistently treated people like Kim Jong-Un and Putin as if he could barely hold himself back from giving them reacharounds in public.
At this point learning that he used the office of the presidency to sell secret information to adversarial states wouldn’t even be a shocker. Just Donald being Donald.
Re: Re: Re:
Michael Cohen says Trump likely kept classified documents at Mar-a-Lago as a ‘bargaining chip’ to avoid any potential jail time
Re: Re: Re:2
That… is disturbingly plausible actually, I could absolutely see him trying to hold the country hostage like that to try to avoid jail time.
Re: Re: Re:2
I can’t wait for former President Trump to become ex-President Trump.
Re: Re: Re:3
Oh, wow, was he also the president of your country, there in Hasbara?
Re: Re: Re:4
Fuck off, Phillip, you piece of shit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Fuck off, DBAC troll, you piece of shit.
Re: Re: Re:6
Still lying in the namefield, I see, DBA Philkip K. Dickcheese. Flagged.
Re:
Though it likely wouldn’t help their Dear Leader in this particular instance if they really think the law oversteps the mark then his supporters in office should be pushing to have it overturned and taken off the books as unless they want to just completely tip their hand by trying to argue that it shouldn’t apply to them(which I wouldn’t put past them) it does seem like he’s screwed with it in it’s current state.
Re: Re:
That is, of course, assuming the DoJ pursues an indictment, which is not a given (but is a lot likelier than it was a few months ago and seemingly getting likelier all the time).
Recovering the documents could have been an end in itself; it’s entirely possible the DoJ could stop there.
But if they do, it won’t be because they don’t have a strong case, it’ll be because they don’t want to get involved with something this politically sensitive.
(I think it would be a tremendous mistake not to prosecute him; I think the reason we’re here in the first place is that nobody prosecuted Nixon, Reagan, or Bush. But unfortunately, that history makes it very easy for me to believe nobody will prosecute Trump either. For all the talk about how no one is above the law, the evidence says otherwise.)
Re: Re: Re:
Refusing to prosecute just because someone is politically powerful is not only a huge sign of corruption and/or cowardice but it ensures that while there may be less ‘hassle’ currently the problem will only get worse over time since others will see that at a certain point ‘no one is above the law’ is simply not true and therefore so long as they have enough power the limits and law won’t apply to them either.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes, that is a different way of phrasing the thing I just said.
Re: Re: Re:2
To quote Thad:
I think it would be a tremendous mistake not to prosecute him; I think the reason we’re here in the first place is that nobody prosecuted Nixon, Reagan, or Bush. But unfortunately, that history makes it very easy for me to believe nobody will prosecute Trump either. For all the talk about how no one is above the law, the evidence says otherwise.
You were saying?
Re: Re: Re:3
‘You just repeated what they said in a different way’… said the person who just repeated what they said in a different way.
Just can’t make that up…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
So you admit to posting under the AC label as a sockpuppet, and can’t remember which one is you? No wonder you have trouble telling different users apart.
Re: Re: Re:5
Truly the world you live in is a strange one with little to any relation to reality…
Re: Re: Re:6
Nobody’s ever truthfully accused BDAC of being literate.
Re: Re: Re:7
I’ve been wondering for a while but what does BDAC stand for?
Re: Re: Re:8
Brain-Dead AC. As their habits are clearly different from some other ACs.
And because the original BDAC was Ajit Pai’s hive of scum and villainy, the abbreviation certainly fits their character.
Re: Re: Re:9
Makes sense, thanks for clearing that up.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Brain-Dead AC aka Toom1275.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
I see that you have a Techdirt “Anonymous Coward” problem, like so many that comment here at TD, being harassed by Chinese and Russian trolls, and TD’s well known in-house trolls who are mods, and who hide under that nym.
Please unite with me and use the flag button over here, to your right>>>>>>>
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Wrong! Toom is a centrist police state supporter. Not the ame thing! The former know what they are doing and plot it in advance, whereas the usual DBAC’s are bots or similar.
Re: Re: Re:10
Comment again once you’ve rejoined us in reality, DBA Phillip K. Dickcheese, you hypocritical troll. Until then, flagged.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Brain dead AC, aka Toom1275 when he’s not signed in.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
I see you have an Anonymous Asshole problem. See that flag button over there>>>>>>>?
Use it– a lot! Flag these DBAC dirtbags off the forum.
Re: Re: Re:10
Starting with you, DBA Phillip K. Dickcheese? I sure will!
Re: Re: Re:7
Nor you. The difference is no one’s actually said it in AC’s case.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
You claim, confusing a copy/paste with a restatement. Whenever you accuse others of illiteracy, that must be an attempt at deflecting attention from your apparent reading comprehension problem.
Re: Re: Re:5
There’s otherwording, and then there’s just making stuff up out of nowhere. You, my friend, are guilty of the latter.
Re: Re: Re:6
I read the post you replied to, and it looks like you’re the one guilty of making stuff up out of nowhere.
Re: Re: Re:7
And what did I make up?
Re: Re: Re:8
I have to say, each and every time this douchebag shows up and tries his best to mimic Toom1275 and Rocky while accusing Techdirt regulars as secret trolls posting anonymously, it’s a fucking riot. All because some idiot couldn’t accept Bayside Advisory getting referred to as “copyright law’s best and brightest”.
Re: Re: Re:8
You made up that AC was making stuff up out of nowhere just because they were clearly attempting to clarify what another user was saying. If you still don’t get that, I’ll leave you to live in your fantasyland.
Re: Re: Re:9
Nobody literate would claim making hallucinatory accusatiins that That One Guy is sockpuppeting ACs is “attenpting to clarify what another user was saying” yet here you are yet again.
Re: Re:
What will be really interesting now is all the back talk from both sides.
The republicans, including trump, kept making noise to punish Clinton. How they will set it out that she deserves punishment but not trump.
On the other side, we have all the dems so against pursuit of Clinton who no have to explain why there’s a sudden difference.
I look forward to all the babbling that’s going to happen now!
Re: Re: Re:
Well that should be easy. Clinton didn’t take boxes of government documents to her house after she left office.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, she just used a private insecure email server for government business. Which included sending, receiving, and storing classified documents.
Trump has papers, clinton had data bits. It’s still holding classified materials.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s very different from what Trump did, and it was exhaustively investigated by her avowed political enemies. If there had been any way to nail her for it they would have.
Re: Re: Re:3
If you go back and look at the information on what top secret information was on Clintons server, it wasn’t. That happened later, they reclassified some the documents contained in emails to Top Secret 4 years later when the House Select Committee on Benghazi was in full swing.
Funny how that reclassification happened while the committee was trying to pin anything on Clinton.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
It wouldn’t have mattered if she wasn’t using a private unsecured server in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:5 Well this is awkward... for you
So if she didn’t want to do the time…
Re: Re: Re:5
Which is entirely beside the point.
Hillary used a private server because it was convenient for her, documents ended up on it through normal work-related communications.
Trump intentionally took documents to MAL when he left the White House, stored them insecurely and obstructed the efforts to have them returned which led to a warrant being served.
And you think the situations are comparable somehow? Both deals with documents, but as usual – it’s the intent that matters.
So how about you fucking stop using other peoples fuckups as excuses for the orange ape’s actions. It’s moronic but I guess we can’t expect more from someone who reflexively defends the indefensible.
Re: Re: Re:6
And then Lostcause wonders why three or four different commenters have called Trump his godking.
Re: Re: Re:7
We have no idea what trump’s intent was/is. Just our own personal opinions.
Godking godthing mediafling. Not once did I say he shouldn’t be investigated here. Absolutely, do so.
Nor did I complain once that they took documents back.
What I complained about was the pure abusive display of show and pomp in power. Two marshals could have done the same recovery. The ‘raid’ was for show. That is my single complaint.
(I still am uneasy with the safe issue, but that has more to do with my views on warrant use and what should and should not be dictated).
If trump is guilty, have at it. That’s what investigations are for. To, er, investigate.
Re: Re: Re:8
Two marshals could have done the same recovery.
What part of “search” and “second largest mansion in the state of Florida” are you too dumb to get? Q-/
Re: Re: Re:9
Is it really that large? Well. 4 marshals then.
Lights and sirens. Were the papers going to flee?
Or were they creating a massive media event?
Re: Re: Re:10
In and out is far preferable to Ricky Schiffer interfering.
Re: Re: Re:8
Are you so fucking stupid you don’t understand the sentence refused to hand over the documents. He was intentionally withholding them from the National Archives. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fucking fact.
You are still stupid, you fail to take a lot of things into consideration which I can guarantee the FBI didn’t. MAL is a huge place so it only makes sense to have a lot of personnel there because a) you have to have control over the area, b) make sure no one tampers with any evidence and preserve the chain of custody, c) stop idiotic MAGA supporters from interfering.
How the fuck do you propose 2 marshals accomplish that? Hat in hand and asking nicely at the gate “Pardon the intrusion, but please can we have the documents now?”
The reality is that Trump broke the law by withholding the documents and here you want the FBI to treat him with kid-gloves because it may hurt his feelings or some other inane reason.
And to do that, Mr Pea-Brain, they have to serve warrants and gather evidence which in the real world usually means an amount of people that is proportional to the circumstances and the property’s size they need to search.
Re: Re: Re:8
That lie would be slightly less unnbelievable if it hadn’t been debunked more than a day before you told it.
Re: Re: Re:9
“I’m not a Trump supporter,” Lostinlodos whimpered, “But I’ll willingly herniate my own back carrying his water.”
Re: Re: Re:10
If carrying trump’s water is:
If saying dozens of armed meant picking up a few boxes of paperwork is excessive.
If saying he has a right to a fair trial as any citizen of this country.
If saying how poorly, and flashy, this was was going to bring every nutter out to vote.
If that, somehow, equates to active support, you’re so delusional I can’t come up with a reply.
Some of us still believe in law, order, and justice.
Re: Re: Re:11
Should they have just sent a few agents so it would take a lot longer? Or are you suggesting the FBI is going to execute a raid unarmed?
What are you talking about? He hasn’t even been charged with a crime yet. There is no due process violation here.
That’s fine, but it doesn’t matter. The laws he’s being investigated under don’t have loopholes based on why the subject mishandled government documents.
Re: Re: Re:9
I’ve yet to hear trump state why he had them. Or of any evidence as to what he intended to do. So I’m not following what you claim has been debunked.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Comparable in that not cases involve storage of classified materials in places where they (apparently) should not be.
Other than that. I just which people would keep investigating Clinton because I hate here as much as you all hate trump.
I just want someone to find something, anything, no matter how small, to slap her with.
It’s that simple. Really.
Re: Re: Re:7
How does that Sanskrit proverb go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Nice going disproving your assertions that you don’t like Trump.
Re: Re: Re:8
Being an ally against an enemy doesn’t make people supportive of each other beyond a common goal.
Re: Re: Re:9
And yet you keep supporting Trump even though your purported reason for doing so no longer exists.
Re: Re: Re:10
Not as of late.
He did accomplish a few things I agreed with like (start) building the southern wall.
And a withdrawal of Afghanistan occupation forces.
Reduced international involvement.
Negotiated peace accords with west Asian nations.
—all things Obama promised and failed to deliver.
Given that I not only voted for Obama, but was a campaign volunteer, twice, I’m really happy things got done this time around.
And what did the Dems give us? The Burn? No. We get a partisan boot lick with dementia. Who’s the real wizard behind the curtain?
I have no idea how I’ll vote in 24. Chances are high the Democrat party will split over the elite’s forceful push of Biden 2.0. Meaning a 3rd party or alt-Dem candidate with a chance to win.
As long as they’re not an environmental extremist and promise not to take away our rifles when the ‘bad people’ keep their handguns… I’m in.
Especially with a meat tax, I’d definitely start eating more wild meat.
Re: Re: Re:11
We get a partisan boot lick with dementia.
Links.
Re: Re: Re:12
That he’s partisan, or has dementia.
Boot lick, that’s my own opinion. The partisanship leads me so say that.
Dementia. If you can’t see the signs since 2019 then you have no understanding of dementia, or are simply self inclined to ignore it.
I have no time or personal will to convince you either way.
Re: Re: Re:13
That he’s partisan, or has dementia.
That Biden has dementia, obviously. He’s partisan by virtue of being a Democrat, just like your godking is partisan by virtue of being a Republican.
Re: Re: Re:13
You would speak from personal experience.
Re: Re: Re:14
Yep, runs in both sides of my family.
Re: Re: Re:11
He did accomplish a few things I agreed with like (start) building the southern wall.
So you’re racist. Noted.
And a withdrawal of Afghanistan occupation forces.
Enacted by Obama as the outgoing President.
Reduced international involvement.
Achieved through the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
Negotiated peace accords with west Asian nations.
His idea? Really?
—all things Obama promised and failed to deliver.
I’ve already disproved that lie.
Re: Re: Re:12
If secure borders are racist, then so we’re Obama and Clinton. Who both made mild gestures on a promised securing of the border fencing, and expansion.
If you wish to point out anywhere he/his administration did anything other than make comments… feel free. I’m open to listening. It was the 16 term that set dates. Drew plans. And prepared movements. That Biden simply ignored it all, is in Biden.
Did or did not Arab nations sign agreements with Isreal while his administration was in office, supplying negotiators.
You ignored Obama’s promise of border wall expansion. You claim with no evidence that Obama made any advancement on an Afghan withdrawal. You pretend Trump’s administration didn’t negotiate historic peace accords.
Re: Re: Re:13
You claim with no evidence that Trump did any of those things. You made the first assertions, so it’s on you to prove them.
Re: Re: Re:7
Just in perpetuity? She’s been investigated over and over and over and over again. Benghazi, emails, everything. No evidence of a crime was turned up. What would be the purpose of continuing to investigate? Or do you believe that there simply must be something there because you hate her so much, so the investigations should continue until it is found?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Lol. Sounds exactly like the anti-Trump idea. Right?
How many years. How many investigations. I would be happy with a bit of that going after Clinton. Sure. I’m sure we can find a tax or Parkin violation somewhere. I do hate here that much.
I don’t even remotely know what Benghazi was about.
The emails, maybe she’s just stupid. Maybe not. With as many as we’re deleted, and all the phones destroyed. We can never know 100%.
But like Trump, dig long enough you’ll find something !
Re: Re: Re:9
Nope, not even a little bit.
Are you kidding right now? You don’t even need an investigation to find the terrible things Trump does, just turn on the TV and he’ll be bragging about them. This search was supported by a warrant and signed off by a judge, and guess what? They didn’t leave empty handed. Apparently the evidence was right where they expected it to be on the first try, so not that much “digging” required after all.
Re: Re: Re:9
No, because it’s only people like you who use that type of lame excuse to defend Trump and other deplorables. You repeatedly say things like: “But Hillary…”, or “But BLM…”, or “But Democrats…”.
Well, perhaps you shouldn’t consume so much right-wing dreck then – because it has certainly poisoned you with hate for someone who have zero real life impact on you.
It’s entirely your own actions that have led you to become a stupid asshole.
Re: Re: Re:10
People, who think every politician should be accountable to the law when they break it. With zero regard to party?
Or people who hate Clinton.
Re: Re: Re:11
No, people that think everyone should be accountable to the law for acts committed before they were made illegal, just because they hate certain people.
Re: Re: Re:12
ex post facto.
It’s it illegal if the law doesn’t exist. You can’t, and shouldn’t, be held to laws made after the fact.
Re: Re: Re:13
“You can’t, and shouldn’t, be held to laws made after the fact.”
Indeed. Whatever you think of Hillary’s buttery males, it wasn’t even against standard practice at the time, let alone illegal, from my understanding. She has also been investigated, no charges have been brought, and that was under numerous Republican attempts.
Whereas, Trump may be falling foul of laws he himself altered, and some of the charges don’t even require the files to have been classified from what I understand, no matter what weak excuses he has for having the files remaining in his possession despite having returned half of them claiming he returned them all.
If your best defence here is “but whatabout..”, you’ve already lost. If Hillary, Hunter, whoever is found to be guilty under the same standard, prosecute them too. But, that doesn’t change Trump’s liability.
Re: Re: Re:14
I made no defence with what about.
I stated I have no problem with trump being punished if he is guilty.
I didn’t complain at all *about him being investigated ! I complained about **the method of display in doing so.
Go back an read my initial comment!
I wouldn’t wish such a show against the one person on the planet I truly, undeniably, hate.
Re: Re: Re:13
You can’t, and shouldn’t, be held to laws made after the fact.
And yet that’s exactly what you’re insisting on for Hillary, just as AC implied.
Re: Re: Re:14
Show a direct quote where I said she should be convicted of a law made after an action.
Re: Re: Re:15
The part where she’s guilty of possessing classified information that wasn’t classified when she acquired them.
Re: Re: Re:16
I didn’t say she was guilty of possessing classified information. She was SOS, and had clearance for it.
I said she was guilty of having classified information outside of government approved location.
Apparently that wasn’t a crime.
But a the very minimum, really gross negligence. So says many who found her not-guilty.
I said she was guilty of deleting emails. You may believe here when she said they were personal. I do not.
And I personally find her guilty of being a despicable, step on everyone, self serving, fake caring, oppression ignoring, wealth gathering, self-indulgent, poc of a human.
But not criminally guilty of anything she’s been investigated for.
Re: Re: Re:17
The mystery is how you don’t see that Trump is all of those things.
Re: Re: Re:18
Trump has his deep faults. Though I don’t agree with all the MSNBC crybaby crap.
And I agree with less than half his policy. But he hit and tackled thing’s important to me.
He’s no god. But he’s hardly a total disaster.
So far I can count one, single, positive, in Biden’s term. Right to repair.
Re: Re: Re:17
I believe that, as far as anyone appears able to prove, she believed that the deleted emails were personal, and I have no real reason to doubt that she actually believed that. Whether or not they were actually personal, I neither know nor care.
Re: Re: Re:18
I simply don’t know
my hatred of her actions translate to a hatred of her and this I fail, and refuse, to agree by accepting her claim.. It’s purely a me thing but her actions have deeply affected some people I care about dearly.
But none of us will ever know. For absolute surety.
It is what it is.
I just hold out hope she gets a few parking tickets.
Re: Re: Re:19
I mean, you’re at least honest enough to admit this has been nothing more than feeding your own ego.
I’m sure a lot of boomers felt affected when their kids decided to get the COVID-19 vaccine instead of injecting themselves with horse dewormer.
hangintherebaby.jpg
Re: Re: Re:10
Her policy position on Ukraine during here time as SOS directly effected people I know who lived there.
But just ignore the Country’s overwhelming violent oppression of those of recent Russian descent.
She turned a blind eye to China too. Though I know no-one involved in that oppression.
Re: Re: Re:11
You mean at the time when the pro-Russian Yanukovich was president? That is some serious mojo she has that can force a pro-Russian to oppress those of Russian descent. Why didn’t she also use the same power to stop Yanukovich from disbanding the NATO committee after his meeting with Putin?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
She was directly involved in the political backend, as SOS, in the lead up to the posting of Oleksandr Turchynov. Having left office in 2013. From there her successor Kerry carried on what would eventually become the violent subjugation of a group based solely on national origin.
She oversaw what resulted in a chain of events that not only made the situation worse for those oppressed, but eventually lead to a war that has now claimed many thousands.
Just another politician that likes to destabilise. From a long line post WWII
This time, it directly effected me.
Re: Re: Re:10
You repeatedly say things like: “But Hillary…”, or “But BLM…”, or “But Democrats…”.
You forgot “But abortions…”.
Re: Re: Re:11
What about them? I’m personally pro choice. I’d like to see a federal healthcare system that made it financially possible for people to carry to term, but we don’t have that.
Pregnancy to term can cost many tens of thousands in the best of cases. Add a zero if anything goes wrong along the way.
I don’t see how people justify such a burden by force.
Re: Re: Re:12
You use every other Republican/Conservative talking point.
Re: Re: Re:13
How does not wanting abortion banned fall into republican talking points? Or supporting a government funded free to use health care program?
Last I checked, both are contrary to republican viewpoint.
Re: Re: Re:14
Or supporting a government funded free to use health care program?
Last I checked, both are contrary to republican viewpoint.
Either you’re lying or you’re ignorant, because this poll says otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:15
From the link:
What the public wants and what elected/electable leaders support are entirely different things.
And while I don’t deny that there’s a strong support on the near right for universal tax paid healthcare, (52% polled in the link),
You won’t come close to that for abortion.
Or for the, SLOW!, fazing out of fossil fuel, or a tax funded electric charging platform.
Or federal internet. Federal education.
Good luck finding R majority for those things.
Re: Re: Re:9
And how’s that worked out for your team so far?
How is it that even after having Trump in the White House for four years, you still haven’t even found so much as a parking ticket to nail her to the wall for?
Re: Re: Re:7
“Boo-hoo, you are mean to Trump which is sooo unfair! Because of that I’ll be mean to someone else!”
Talk about being a childish asshole.
Re: Re: Re:8
May hatred of Clinton predates trump.
Re: Re: Re:9
So fucking what?
You are still a childish asshole who thinks some emotional baggage for someone largely irrelevant today can be used to excuse and defend what Trump have done and still do.
Re: Re: Re:10
I’m not a defence attorney. I’m not defending here. I’ll wait till an actual trial says he’s guilty before declaring him so.
Re: Re: Re:11
And scream butteryemails until your horse!
Re: Re: Re:12
I taped out, didn’t scream. Screaming doesn’t accomplish anything
It’s just the most recent prior example of inconsistency in location control.
That other guy did it too, private email. I’m fairly sure he was a Republican. Should also be investigated.
And whatever may come of it all.
Re: Re: Re:13
They investigated the shit out of Hillary and yet here you are still screaming about it bro.
Re: Re: Re:9 You are harming yourself
You are still carrying her.
Re: Re: Re:6
So how about you fucking stop using other peoples fuckups as excuses for the orange ape’s actions.
But he’s a troll, that’s what he does best.
Re: Re: Re:7
If that the case for not being partisan in my beliefs of personal responsibility… of holding politicians accountable for criminal actions… then so be it.
I don’t care what party they’re from. Law is law. Including for trump.
Re: Re: Re:8
So now you resort to blatant lying. Have you forgotten your posts can be read even when they’re hidden?
Re: Re: Re:9
Uh, every post I’ve made is readable. Unlike you I have created an account. That records every post I’ve made on my profile.
Put some effort into your trolling if you want to be believed.
Point out directly… anything you incorrectly infer is my saying a politician should not be held to the rule of law.
Whenever you get around to it.
I’ll even help: https://www.techdirt.com/user/lostinlodos/
Re: Re: Re:3
Define “insecure”. As I understand it, the encryption on Hillary Clinton’s personal email address was better than that on her work email, which is why she used it so often for sensitive business.
Re: Re: Re:4
Insecure, meaning not government approved.
Re: Re: Re:5
Your definition of ‘insecure’ doesn’t match that of the rest of the world.
Re: Re: Re:6
That’s the government’s definition.
(I personally think their idea of secure is a joke).
Not to mention that there was evidence reported of her server being breached.
Re: Re: Re:7
https://apnews.com/article/380b995c9fd94e03b09e6c0fcacf1023
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Whoops, maybe wanna try a second draft there pal.
Re: Re: Re:8
Nope. News reports said it may have been.
I’d cheer if she got a fine for j-walking!!! Or a parking ticket.
Re: Re: Re:9
And cry if either thing happened to Trump.
Re: Re: Re:10
Evidence?
Re: Re: Re:11
Found here.
Re: Re: Re:12
Lmao. Funny. Nowhere does it say I’d have any problem with trump being held to the law. Find a crime. Then prosecute. Have at it.
Re: Re: Re:13
Nowhere does it say I’d have any problem with trump being held to the law.
Except your constant assertions, without evidence,that Hillary committed crimes in relation to her emails, yet you expect a far higher standard of proof in the evidence against Trump.
Re: Re: Re:14
She was cleared of her ‘error in judgement’ by law. I accept that it wasn’t legal, though should have been and now is. As I said, look long enough and you’ll find something somewhere on any person.
Re: Re: Re:15
Assent illegal then,
Re: Re: Re:8
Whoops!
Maybe, learn to use Markdown, so that your posts don’t look so sloppy, stupid, and trollish.
according to the Atlantic.
Re: Re: Re:9
Whoops! Maybe learn to use facts, punctuation and spacing so your posts don’t look so sloppy, stupid and trollish. Emphasis on “facts”, such as the fact that a president can declassify documents, Trump never made any real effort to do so, according to CBS News.
Re: Re: Re:10
*although a president… m-/
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
I see that you have a “Techdirt Anonymous Coward” and “in-house trolls” problem. Please join me and use that flag button over here to your right>>>>>>>>
Re: Re: Re:8
Done. Your post has duly been flagged, Phillip.
Re: Re: Re:9
Stay busy!
I see you are an Anonymous Asshole problem.
See that flag button over there–use it– a lot! Flag these AC dirtbags off the forum.>>>>>>>>>
(side note: there are two AC trolls here at TD that are IMPOSSIBLE to flag away, due to the fact that they are mods)
Re: Re: Re:10
I see you are an Anonymous Asshole problem.
You’re certainly an asshole, DBA Phillip K. Dickcheese, but not as anonymous as you think you are. How do you think I know when it’s you posting? Nonetheless, I’ve done as you suggested and flagged your post.
Re: Re: Re:7
Citation needed.
Re: Re: Re: It belongs in a museum!
Sorry the National Archives what their whatabout; butteryemails back.
Re: Re: Re:
Something you really should read. Hope that helps!
Re: Re: Re:2
Oh but it would totally destroy his shit logic if he did that. And then he might realize saying that people who walked through/around/over multiple layers of police barricades somehow didn’t know they were breaking the law and than blaming Hillary for something criminal, because “reasons” is a bit hypocritical. Not to mention trying to compare unorthodox server setups to potential treason…
Re: Re: Re:3
A bit hypocritical? 😯
Re: Re: Re:2
A) I don’t really care. Her innocence or guilt in one matter won’t change my hatred.
B) as the article states
Which puts both her and trump in the same boat. Which is, what I said.
C) I’m a geek, not a nerd. Nice, Vice using derogatory statements for tech professionals. And hobbyists.
D) see A. I hate her. Despise here. And will cheer for any investigation that has any chance to see her hanged out. Which is just how many people feel about trump.
Re: Re: Re:3 It's almost admirable in a sad kind of way
Most people would just stop digging. But you bro. You publish a list of the top ten reasons you’re digging up.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Any investigation that may, no matter how unlikely, turn up criminal dirt on queen bitch has my full support.
Re: Re: Re:5
See, I would’ve thought that would have been done already. With all the rabid fervor about locking her up, and how it was a slam dunk of a case before the election, I’m not understanding why once Trump was in office he, and the justice department did nothing to her.
Not a thing.
In four years.
Despite all that blabbering.
If it was so important, why did the DOJ do absolutely nothing about it?
I guess what I’m really saying is, if you’re asking the rest of us ‘what about Hillary?’ you might want to point that question to the folks who, despite its importance, once again, chose to do nothing.
Re: Re: Re:6 Just take the L lost and you can keep the buttryemails as a parting gift
^^
THIS RIGHT HERE!
Re: Re: Re:5 Show us on the doll where Hillary touched you
“Any investigation that may, no matter how unlikely, turn up criminal dirt on queen bitch has my full support.”
Which one are we on now that has failed to turn up so much as a parking ticket is it 56 or 57?
Re: Re: Re:4
I’ve been meaning to ask you–do they pay you by the word, or by the endless depths of your stupid trolling?
Re: Re: Re:5
I’ve been meaning to ask you, do you know which comment you’re replying to, or are you too distracted by the game you’re playing at the same time?
Re: Re: Re:6
I’ve been meaning to ask you, do you know that you are Thing 1 AND Thing 2 to most observers? Or that your opinions as a non-US citizen mean les than shit to anyone?
Re: Re: Re:7
…do you know that you are Thing 1 AND Thing 2 to most observers?
Only to those that can’t separate one person from another. So those like you, basically, DBA Philkip K. Dickcheese.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Did you learn that after your head was fully up your ass, then atempting to dig yourself out of your own ass?
Or did you read it in a book? Never mind–everyone AC’s can’t read.
Re: Re: Re:5
Comnent when signed out as much as you like, but your poor command of written English will always betray you, LostInLoDOS.
Re: Re: Re:6
I have never commented signed out. I believe in personal responsibility.
Re: Re: Re:6
TBH, the troll DBA Phillip K. Dickcheese has as bad a command of English and is more likely to spout random garbage, so it’s probably him.
Re: Re: Re:4
You publish a list of the top ten reasons you’re digging up.
That’s the opposite of the direction he’s actually digging in. 😉
Re: Re: Re:3
I don’t really care. Her innocence or guilt in one matter won’t change my hatred.
I suppose you cheer every time a black man is executed because of your “guilty even if proved innocent” attitude.
Re: Re: Re:4
Wow, that’s a jump. And an insulting one at that.
How does hating Clinton have anything to do with racial concerns. No, I believe in fair trials. By a jury
And stand by the results.
her not being guilty of a certain crime won’t make me hate her any less.
Re: Re: Re:5
How does hating Clinton have anything to do with racial concerns?
Black men used to be hanged on false charges all the time just because white people didn’t like them, which is the same as you screaming for Hillary to face criminal charges just because you don’t like her. So, not so much of a jump as a little hop.
No, I believe in fair trials. By a jury.
So do I, but only where there’s evidence of a crime, not just because I don’t like someone.
Re: Re: Re:
On the other side, we have all the dems so against pursuit of Clinton who no have to explain why there’s a sudden difference.
Yeah, keep telling yourself ‘that’s it’ instead of the fucking loudmouth saying how she’d be in jail when he wins just deciding to drop what seems to be such a big fucking deal.
Dems don’t need to protect Clinton. Republicans have been saying she would be in jail for the last 30 years. If it’s not important to them, it must not be important.
Re:
Potentially, and probably.
Re:
Hate Trump or just avoid him, I think the last word is that the Garfinkle clan is knee deep in this smear campaign–from the archives on down. Here is yet another Garfinkle working at the Archives, with an opinion, lol.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/trump-fbi-raid-classified-nuclear-documents/671119/
Re: Re:
Here’s a better source for the facts of this case.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Here’s the problem. Years of “trumpkin” and “Russian collusion”, has turned very negative report about trump into background noise. You’re saying “he has secret documents” and we keep hearing “orange man bad”
Kind of how every negative report about Obama ended up being heard as “racists hating a black man”
Re:
Gee, it’s almost as if racists hated Barack Obama for being a Black man no matter what good he did (so much so that one of those racists [successfully] ran for president after being humiliated by said Black man) and Donald Trump is a horrible person who keeps doing horrible things. Imagine that~.
Re: Re:
Never an equivalence made by a reich-whinger that isn’t a false one.
Re: Re: Re:
As you’ve shown many times.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes, I have shown how reich-whingers’ claims to be bullshit a lot. Same as the other good samaritans including but not limited to Stephen, Paul, and bhull also do here.
Re: Re: Re:3
Genuine good Samaritans give help to anyone who needs it rather than lending their aid only when there’s someone to be bullied just because something someone said was (deliberately?) misinterpreted.
Re: Re: Re:4
So you admit we’re good samaritans, then, regardless of your misinterpretations.
Re: Re: Re:5
Thank you for proving AC right by deliberately misinterpreting what they said. Or was that a lack of reading comprehension and you’re a hypocrite when you falsely accuse otjers of the same?
Re: Re: Re:6
Your obvious (because of your trademarked “bullied” delusion) sockpuppet said genuine good samaritans give help to anyonne that needs it. That label obviously applies to me and the others who have only ever posted truth in honest good faith.
“Bullied” and “deliberate misinterpretation” have never been anything more than hallucinatory projections from a pathological liar triggered into psychotic episodes whenever they see someone honest, so naturally ypur bad-faith misinterpretations don’t apply to anyone else at all.
There’s no other possible rational ways to interpret that, so as always you use the word “misinterpretation” (along with “proving” and “hypocrite”) in a fundamentally incorrect way no literate person would.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’m not good at discerning those who actually need help from those I think could use help, but I most certainly don’t “lend[] [my] aid only when there’s someone to be bullied”. At the very least, I genuinely believe that what I am doing is not bullying and that I am genuinely helping people who could use the help even if it’s not strictly necessary, and you have done nothing to demonstrate that my belief is wrong, let alone unreasonable or not genuine.
See, the thing with being a Good Samaritan is that it’s all about intent. You have to demonstrate that our subjectively held beliefs show ill intent in order to prove us to not be Good Samaritans.
Re:
You’re saying “he has secret documents” and we keep hearing “orange man bad”.
I think you mean ‘I’ rather than ‘we’. You’re the first I’ve ever heard of with that particular cognitive problem.
Re: Might be able to hear better without the pillowcase on your head
“Kind of how every negative report about Obama ended up being heard as “racists hating a black man””
If the Klan hood fits bro…
Re: Re:
Yeah, bro!
Re:
So he’s always been a totalitarian and a crook.
Lock him up. That’s the very least he fucking deserves.
Re: Re:
But which one?
All of them.
But that would mean all three houses and most if not all, agencies would be looking damn empty.
Re: Re: Re:
All of them would be a start.
Not a joke.
Re:
That’s somehow different to the right wailing for decades about Clinton murder lists, endless Benghazi hearings that resulted in zero convictions despite dozens of hearing (unlike the Mueller investigations that led to numerous convictions, even if Trump did end up pardoning his friends who got convicted), etc.?
The Obama criticism = racism was just Occam’s razor. People wailed about taxation in a time for relative low historical taxations, whined about everything from condiments to suit colour, and so on. It was just such nonsense that it was clear there was something else in play. It may have been typical bipartisan nonsense, but it was clear that there was a large increase in such complaints beyond the usual “Democrat in the White House” silliness, and there was little objective reason for it.
The problem with criticism of Trump is that there was a lot of evidence that he was actually doing so things very wrong, and this is just the latest example of actual criminal activity that people are trying to ignore/deflect the solid evidence of. If your guy was committing so many potential crimes and openly anti-American actions that people informing you about them disappear into background noises because there’s so much of it, it’s possible that the problem isn’t the people pointing them out to you.
The whole question of whether a prosecution is political is meaningless when you’re prosecuting a coup, the most political crime possible. Please start saying this in your headlines!
Re:
Of course it’s political. What I am surprised about is that nobody but nobody has connected the dots. The FBI Definition of Terrorism:
“Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”
Now threatening to hang the then-current Vice-President for upholding the law, invading a sitting Congress for the purpose of overthrowing a legal transfer of power … does that look like an act of terrorism or not? Either way, there’s also law on the material support of terrorism, isn’t there?!?!
It’s turtles all the way down …
Re: Re:
FBI: White supremacy is the biggest domestic threat to America.
Also the FBI: Let’s start white supremacist honeypots and train white power agent provacateurs!
Re: Re: Re:
And the FBI again: Let’s buy a bunch of $20 Amazon gift cards so we can give them to our trainees to send on to the Proud Boys, then we can arrest them all for providing material support to terrorists.
Re: Re: 18 U.S.C. 2339B(a)(1) prohibits the knowing provision of "any service, training, expert advice or assistance"
A friend of mine (RIP) Ralph Fertig lost that one.
Jared Kushner probably been digging in the boxes.. an easy $2 billion from Saudi Arabia’s “sovereign wealth fund” to start!
See https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/united-states-v-humanitarian-law-project-petition
Re:
Funny that.
At that event there was hardly a heavily armed and armored enforcer to be seen, and those that were did nothing or cheered.
Yet weeks and months earlier different protests were met with solid walls of heavily armed itchy uniforms on a hair trigger.
Nobody talks about that.
It’s almost enough to think there was some sort of conspiracy.
Re: Re:
At that event there was hardly a heavily armed and armored enforcer to be seen, and those that were did nothing or cheered.
Video.
Re: Re:
Or injured for, yanno, opposing the white power fucks.
Considering how cavalier the Tangerine is, it won’t be shocking when he ends up in jail. The only shocking thing is that he isn’t already there. It’s a bit of “Slick Willy”.
Re:
I hope he and THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY ends up in jail.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Then–the WOOOOOOOOORLD!!!!!! Mbwahahaha. A complete Globohomo WIN!!!
Re: Corrupt and cowardly
I’d love to be proven wrong but I’d honestly give him fairly good odds of avoiding any serious consequences yet again as the republicans don’t dare turn on their Dear Leader lest they face the unhinged wrath of their voting block who support him and the democrats are likely to be cowed into submission the second someone accuses them of using the government to go after their political enemies since clearly that’s the only reason this could be happening.
Re: Re:
Criminal matters don’t require involvement from Congress – the DOJ can take action on its own.
Re: Re: Re:
Which increases the odds slightly to be sure, what I was talking about was more the idea that any of them would support what’s being done rather than loudly decry it and do everything they can to shut the whole thing down via public and political pressure.
Re: Re:
“the republicans don’t dare turn on their Dear Leader”
Sadly, time will tell. The cult is still there, but there’s a trend toward Fox, etc. turning toward DeSantis as a front runner, along with some other minor figures. They’ve been distracted by the attempt to pretend that investigating crimes is somehow illegal, but there seems to be a push elsewhere.
The biggest problem with Trump is that he might have paved the way for a competent fascist, and you’ll be doing yourself a disservice by becoming complacent just because they still have their clown. They were convinced to vote for an obviously incompetent con artist, they can be convinced to vote for a less obvious evil.
Re:
FFS.
Clinton’s plenty sleazy but you can fuck off with the false equivalence.
Re: Re:
Point to the false equivalence that was made, because I just don’t see it.
Re: Re:
Sadly, there’s no false equivalence here.
Powerful people do escape their consequences, from Hollywood to politics.
It’s only recently that powerful people finally face the consequences of their actions.
Re: Re: Re:
Genuine question: what actions did “Slick Willy” escape the consequences of? The only thing I know of was the debacle with Monica Lewinski, and while it certainly tanks respect for the man, that alone is not anywhere on the level of the heinousness of Trump.
So I request enlightenment – what did Bill Clinton do, that he got away with, that is equivalent to the Trump criminalities?
Re: Re: Re:2 Not to mention
While Pres. Clinton did get get impeached for lying about a blowjob, the conviction leading to this was thrown out due to the fact that the line of questioning used was shown to have been a perjury trap.
Real Estate? Ken Starr could not get Susan McDougal to support his charges in this. She was thrown in jail because she would not perjure herself.
Re: Re: Re:2
Here’s the thing, the nickname “Slick Willy” could also refer to Willie Brown, in which case there’s no false equivalence. That’s why I asked for more information.
Re: Re: Re:
Communist!!!
Re: Re: Re:2
Nazi!!!
guilty and unrepentant
Not only did Trump take top secret documents he didnt own and had no business possessing, but when questioned about whether he had them he lied. The FBI was forced to go there with a warrant to get them back.
really? so sorry! i thought it was!!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Ideas
Appears to be a lot going on here.
As the author knows, and left out, is secret levels are often use-coded. LEU/FLE for law enforcement groups, FOP/OP for operational planning. Etc. Even CEO level often has a carved exclusionary.
And here’s WHY that is important. Right now, we know very little of what Trump had, and why. And while the public will likely never be given all the information, a lot of how this moves forward will depend on what the classification reason and use allowances were. As well as the actual why of him having them.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to have them. Though in such cases the holding is usually well documented.
There is a possibility that the hostile change of leadership just caused this to get lost in the exchange of office.
And yes, this could also be malicious. Or just human stupidity.
But both Obama and Bush, W, have possession of classified originals held by their library, non-public. As detailed by records in the national archives on some redacted records made available (original located at:).
Many former presidents have classified records.
So, here’s where this can go. At best, for him, Trump had materials with cause and properly stored. If so, we have a paperwork issue. Failure to file. Usually a slap on the wrist and a record of public admonishment.
More likely he also didn’t have them properly stored. Which would be mishandling of… and that’s exactly what Clinton was/is in hot water over. Though in her case she also transmitted insecurely. Which drives up the response considerably.
There’s the possibility he took them for some personal reason. Such as denying access for Biden. Or because he wanted them. Which is now in the realm of conspiracy and actual crime level.
AMD maybe, however unlikely, he actually intended to transmit them to a non-aligned state. Which like insecure transmission, would move into the treasonous level.
In my opinion, whatever it is he had. He so truly believed the election would be overturned he simply walked out with documents he needed quickly for when he was sworn in.
Or alternatively,
He told some staffer or aid to grab something from somewhere and they just grabbed everything that was there.
Both these scenarios, likely in my opinion, show stupidity and lack of awareness. But not any kind of malice
Re:
Not for this particular case, because the warrant doesn’t even mention any laws having to do with classified information. Perhaps some future case will, but right the DOJ is interested in actions taken that may have been illegal regardless of whether any documents were classified or not. Discussion of whether the documents are classified is at this point not much more than a red herring.
Re: Re:
I understand, and agree
The first question, now answered, was if he had documents that were classified.
Now, if he doesn’t have a legitimate reason to have them, he’s in big trouble.
How much depends on what he has and why.
Re:
Being the ex president is not one of them. I mean, would you take and keep copies of you employers secrets when you cease to be employed by them.
Re:
Right now, we know very little of what Trump had, and why.
But we know do why, so he could show off. “I’m the President of the United States and I have complete access to all this secret stuff. See? Right here and here, and there’s another one here.”
Re:
*Though in her case she also transmitted insecurely. *
Back to this old chestnut after already agreeing that Hillary’s devices were likely more secure than the government-provided ones?
Re: Re:
Actuality I was using the government’s on definition that if it’s not to official standard it’s insecure. Regardless of actual penetrationary concerns.
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for admitting you’d rather live in Fantasyland than the real world, and that’s why you keep “rebutting” my statements with bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:
Where did you find this definition?
But her emails!
One last time
And again, for the last time!
I have no like or dislike for Trump. Totally apathetic. As my line-by to the “lest we forget” post so popular here with trump haters, I disagree with about 55%. Slightly more than half the “bad” and agree with about 45%, slightly less than half, I consider good.
16 was an opposition to that waste of air Clinton.
20 was simply the devil I know vs the Bumbler.
Ign Ign. Dooo
eep now ake. Iden eep
(S King fans will get the reference).
I had zero evidence to support someone who would be (and now even NYT and CNN say) nothing more than a mentally incapacitated figurehead.
Re:
I had zero evidence to support someone who would be (and now even NYT and CNN say) nothing more than a mentally incapacitated figurehead.
And yet you still vpted for Trump.
Re: Maybe make a list of all the ways you 're carrying water for him
“And again, for the last time!
I have no like or dislike for Trump.”
Either you smell toast burning or you are lying to yourself bro. It’s beyond obvious.
Re:
“And again, for the last time!
I have no like or dislike for Trump”
You claimed you voted for him several times. Including after his incompetence was laid bare. People who are actually apathetic about someone don’t typically vote for him in the middle of a global pandemic.
“20 was simply the devil I know vs the Bumbler.”
The idea that after all the evidence available you’d refer to Biden as the bumbler is very funny. I mean, Joe could be a better public speaker, he could certainly have been better at fighting against certain hostile forces, but he’s got nothing on the rambling nonsense insanity that his predecessor spouted.
Seriously, Trumpers are using mental capacity and accusations of nepotism and inappropriate sexual politics as their attacks? Did you not look at you guy? I mean, I know you’re somehow incapable of using real policy and issues to argue and you have to go with personal attack and identity politics, but can you not pick something that’s not hilariously applicable to your guy?