Trump Had More Than 300 Classified Documents at Mar-a-Lago

Sorry, friend, but you are way out in left field. First of all choices and exceptions are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, no law enforcement cannot reopen a case that they have already concluded (like Hillary's) without substantial new and different evidence. Trump's DOJ was not allowed to do anything more with Hillary's case. It had been closed and done with. (There might have been other reasons for Trump not going after Hillary, I dunno.)

 

FBI’s Comey says ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would bring a case against Clinton for emails
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi...d-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

 

Back to arguing with yourself I see. Good grief man I gave you the recommendation to the PRESIDENT FROM NARA, read it or not I don't care lol. I do appreciate your uncanny ability to tell others what they've read, haven't read, think or haven't thought.

If I can be frank, I don't believe much from you or NBC since the Russia Hoax, everything you predicted fell flat on its face. Every time you promised Trump was going to be charged with has fell flat on its face. I posted the NARA document for others, not you, you've stated clearly you only believe what you think.

 

Well, I gave you a statement from NARA, and you responded by saying you wanted something from NARA and not NBC. So, no, you didn't ****ing read it. It isn't "uncanny" that I can understand those facts. It's just literacy.

I didn't link to NBC. I linked you to NARA. Frankly, I don't believe you have any interest at all in any fact that challenges your dear leader since . . . well since at least this conversation.

I didn't predict anything. I linked you to NARA's statement.

I never promised any such thing. But, I get it, you'd rather make up bull **** than read the sources that you PRETENDED to want to read, and have proven you are unwilling to read.

My statement was based DIRECTLY on NARA's. Directly. And I linked you to it. And you refused to read a single paragraph, solely because it challenged the object of your misguided hero worship.

 

Which is why had he discovered any crimes and reported them, as he was required to do, the referral to the Congress would have been made to have him impeached and removed so he could be prosecuted.

You WERE around when Clinton was impeached for the 11 felonies the Office of Independent Counsel found he committed.

I'll ask again the question you guys won't answer

Tell me if the Secret Service hears shots in the Biden's bedroom and they rush in and find Biden standing over the dead body of Jill gun in hand do you think he would get away with murder because he is a sitting President? What do you think would happen?

 

Do you know what it means? "Non sequitur," after your claim that

Wild Bill Kelsoe said: ↑
If that's your position, then Trump didn't break any laws.

means that your "point" does not logically follow, from what I had said.

 

The Presidential Center will not house any official physical documents.

 

IOW, DJT's enraged enemies are betting the ranch on Fake News.
So fake you refuse to cite it.

“Experts agreed that the president, as commander-in-chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When someone lower in the chain of command handles classification and declassification duties -- which is usually how it’s done -- it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.

The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan -- which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance -- addresses this line of authority.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will.””

POLITIFACT, James Risch stated on May 15, 2017 in remarks to reporters:
"The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time ***without any process***.”

• NATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES MILITARY TRANSPARENCY JAMES RISCH” (emphasis mine)

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...resident-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

Must be a bunch of MAGA hats over there at the Poynter Institute/PolitiFact.

 

Yes, that is pretty much what Comey said (even though officially it was not his call to make), right after he said that she was guilty of a felony

 

Source?

 

The Obama Foundation.

 

Comey in his statement

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

And from the New York Times

Hillary Clinton’s Email Was Probably Hacked, Experts Say

When the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,” both private experts and federal investigators immediately understood his meaning: It very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.

Mr. Comey described, in fairly blistering terms, a set of email practices that left Mrs. Clinton’s systems wide open to Russian and Chinese hackers, and an array of others. She had no full-time cybersecurity professional monitoring her system. She took her BlackBerry everywhere she went, “sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” Her use of “a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.”

In the end, the risks created by Mrs. Clinton’s insistence on keeping her communications on a private server may prove to be a larger issue than the relatively small amount of classified data investigators said they found on her system. But the central mystery — who got into the system, if anyone — may never be resolved.


“Reading between the lines and following Comey’s logic, it does sound as if the F.B.I. believes a compromise of Clinton’s email is more likely than not,” said Adam Segal, the author of “Hacked World Order,” who studies cyberissues at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Sophisticated attackers would have known of the existence of the account, would have targeted it and would not have been seen.”


Mr. Comey couched his concern on Tuesday by repeating the intelligence community’s favorite phrase — “we assess” — four times, but ultimately reached no hard-and-fast conclusion. “We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account,” he said....
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/hillary-clintons-email-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html


The first months her server was in operation it did not even have basic encryption, any could read the emails on a simple text editor. It is folly to believe it was never intruded upon and foreign adversaries read what they could.

 

Your link doesn't work and Risch is not the authority.

 

That isn't a source, unless you have a link

 

I had been aware of prosecutors needing to convince grand juries to indict, in cases, but I didn't realize this applied to all indictments, that is, all criminal charges, filed; I thought it only applied if the crime was significantly serious. In this case, of course, the charges would likely clear that bar, anyway.

That is what you are referring to, isn't it, when you say "if it agrees, the court issues the actual indictment?" Or are you saying that a judge makes that call? That sounds more like the pretrial hearing, in which a judge just OKays, that there are sufficient grounds for the case to proceed to trial, or else dismisses it, for lack of evidence. Is that what you expect to happen, in Trump's case?

 

Depends on the AG.

 

No evidence it was hacked. Maybe it was isn’t evidence

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...resident-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

Works every Time to is tried. The source is PolitiFact/The Poynter Institute validating Risch's conclusion and citing:

1. "Article II of the Constitution"

2. 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan:
His authority to classify and control access ... exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

3. "Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy : "authority to "classify and declassify at will."

“Experts agreed that the president, as commander-in-chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When someone lower in the chain of command handles classification and declassification duties -- which is usually how it’s done -- it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.

The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan -- which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance -- addresses this line of authority.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will.””

POLITIFACT, James Risch stated on May 15, 2017 in remarks to reporters:

"The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time ***without any process***.”

• NATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES MILITARY TRANSPARENCY JAMES RISCH” (emphasis mine)

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...resident-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

 

I've never heard anyone accuse the Federal government of being too fast a getting anything done. lol
But, do you agree that Obama does not have classified documents in his possession?

 

Perhaps. You will have to look at the context of DJT's statement.

 

Post #337 has a link for the FBI website.
I found more than one, but figured that would suffice.
Where's your link disputing what I said? (or factcheck or the FBI)

 

LoL you can repeat it as often as you wish.

 

The Inconvenient Truth:

Risch: "The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time***without any process***.”

PoliticFact/The Poynter Institute: "Mostly True".
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...resident-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

 

Some actual sites and people

https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...eclassify-documents-is-bs-leon-panetta-2022-8

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/trumps-dubious-standing-order-to-declassify-documents/

 

You should consider PolitiFact and The Poynter Institute should be more credible -- unless you are not an enlightened progressive?

"1. "Article II of the Constitution"

2. 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan:
His authority to classify and control access ... exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

3. "Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy : "authority to "classify and declassify at will.""

4. POLITIFACT, James Risch stated on May 15, 2017 in remarks to reporters:
"The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time ***without any process***.”

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...resident-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/