Trump's Taxes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-10-2016, 05:25 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2016 05:34 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 04:53 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 03:39 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...
Plus, there was a whole FBI investigation that already found her innocent of criminal wrongdoing.
...

Interesting. That's not how I heard the FBI guy's presentation.

My take away was ... guilty but not charged.

Comey Wrote:To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.


Here's a take from a Harvard lawyer, Andrew Torrez.

Andrew Torrez's personal blog post about it.

His episode of the Opening Arguments podcast (with Thomas Smith) also about it.


On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James B. Comey released a statement to the public summarizing the findings of the FBI’s year-long investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system while serving as Secretary of State. The key finding, for purposes of this discussion, is this:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

In short, the FBI found that Clinton had no intent to violate the law but was “extremely careless.”


Here's the TL;DR version.

Summary

My research indicates that Director Comey’s statement was, in all significant respects, correct. Prosecutors do not bring cases on facts similar to those present in Hillary Clinton’s case. In particular, I can find no case, anywhere, in which any person has ever been sentenced under the Espionage Act without evidence that said person unambiguously knew the material they were removing was confidential. Since that fact is not present here, I conclude that Hillary Clinton received no special treatment when the government declined to indict her.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 05:33 AM
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 04:53 AM)DLJ Wrote:  That's not how I heard the FBI guy's presentation.

A quick read gave me the impression that a large part of the presentation was, "The FBI are great and clever and this is how we are covering our arses."

My reading would be that Clinton et al where careless to the point of incompetence. If there is a legal "criminally careless/negligence" charge available that would be the one to apply. I very much doubted that she was deliberately endangering security.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 05:38 AM
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 05:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 04:53 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Interesting. That's not how I heard the FBI guy's presentation.

My take away was ... guilty but not charged.


Here's a take from a Harvard lawyer, Andrew Torrez.

Andrew Torrez's personal blog post about it.

His episode of the Opening Arguments podcast (with Thomas Smith) also about it.


On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James B. Comey released a statement to the public summarizing the findings of the FBI’s year-long investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system while serving as Secretary of State. The key finding, for purposes of this discussion, is this:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

In short, the FBI found that Clinton had no intent to violate the law but was “extremely careless.”


Here's the TL;DR version.

Summary

My research indicates that Director Comey’s statement was, in all significant respects, correct. Prosecutors do not bring cases on facts similar to those present in Hillary Clinton’s case. In particular, I can find no case, anywhere, in which any person has ever been sentenced under the Espionage Act without evidence that said person unambiguously knew the material they were removing was confidential. Since that fact is not present here, I conclude that Hillary Clinton received no special treatment when the government declined to indict her.
It's amazing what the rich and powerful can get away with simply by pretending to be disgustingly incompetent, isn't it? The Secretary of State is a classifying authority, but we're supposed to believe that she is so mentally handicapped that she didn't know how to tell apart unclassified information and top secret information that would gravely damage the US national security if it became public? There's no intent because those e-mails ended up there by accident, is that it? Facepalm

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 05:47 AM
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 05:38 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 05:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Here's a take from a Harvard lawyer, Andrew Torrez.

Andrew Torrez's personal blog post about it.

His episode of the Opening Arguments podcast (with Thomas Smith) also about it.


On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James B. Comey released a statement to the public summarizing the findings of the FBI’s year-long investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system while serving as Secretary of State. The key finding, for purposes of this discussion, is this:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

In short, the FBI found that Clinton had no intent to violate the law but was “extremely careless.”


Here's the TL;DR version.

Summary

My research indicates that Director Comey’s statement was, in all significant respects, correct. Prosecutors do not bring cases on facts similar to those present in Hillary Clinton’s case. In particular, I can find no case, anywhere, in which any person has ever been sentenced under the Espionage Act without evidence that said person unambiguously knew the material they were removing was confidential. Since that fact is not present here, I conclude that Hillary Clinton received no special treatment when the government declined to indict her.
It's amazing what the rich and powerful can get away with simply by pretending to be disgustingly incompetent, isn't it? The Secretary of State is a classifying authority, but we're supposed to believe that she is so mentally handicapped that she didn't know how to tell apart unclassified information and top secret information that would gravely damage the US national security if it became public? There's no intent because those e-mails ended up there by accident, is that it? Facepalm

So I take it that in the 10 or so minutes since you posted this, that you have not listened to the podcast or read his blog post?

Thanks. Drinking Beverage

But hey, even assuming you are right, at least Clinton has to pretend to be incompetent; whereas Trump makes it abundantly clear every time he opens his mouth. Laughat

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 05:50 AM
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 05:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 05:38 AM)Vosur Wrote:  It's amazing what the rich and powerful can get away with simply by pretending to be disgustingly incompetent, isn't it? The Secretary of State is a classifying authority, but we're supposed to believe that she is so mentally handicapped that she didn't know how to tell apart unclassified information and top secret information that would gravely damage the US national security if it became public? There's no intent because those e-mails ended up there by accident, is that it? Facepalm

So I take it that in the 10 or so minutes since you posted this, that you have not listened to the podcast or read his blog post?

Thanks. Drinking Beverage
I read the blog post before I responded to you, actually. The only notable difference between her case and the cases cited by this alleged lawyer is that they didn't claim to have been unaware of the classified nature of the documents they took home with them. Care to respond with some substance this time?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 06:05 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2016 06:12 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 05:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-10-2016 05:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So I take it that in the 10 or so minutes since you posted this, that you have not listened to the podcast or read his blog post?

Thanks. Drinking Beverage
I have read the blog post before I responded to you, actually. The only notable difference between her case and the cases cited by this alleged lawyer is that they didn't claim to have been unaware of the classified nature of the documents they took home with them. Care to respond with some substance this time?

"alleged lawyer"? Dodgy

I'm going to say this because Mr. Torrez cannot, but go fuck yourself Vosur. That's super shitty, and you know it.


I'm listening to it right now, and that is an important distinction. The FBI investigation also found evidence of thousands of clearly marked confidential email not being migrated. So yeah, when things were evidently marked as confidential with the proper headers, they were handled properly. Some however lacked the proper headers, and were mishandled. Should they have known better, taken better precautions? Yeah. But were they being purposely negligent with known classified material? The FBI did not think they were, and that is a huge distinguishing characteristic in comparison to all of the other Espionage Act cases he looked at.

So I have to just repeat the intro to the podcast.

"I want to address a very, very specific legal argument; and I guess the way I want to talk about that is first by talking about what I don't want to address. Okay? Which is to say, if you believe that the director of the FBI has secretly conspired with the Clinton campaign to cover up the facts? If you think that the FBI findings, that Hillary Clinton was not aware and had no intent to remove confidential information from the chain of custody? If you don't believe that, then this podcast is not for you. If you think that Hillary Clinton secretly murdered Vince Fauster, right? This podcast is not for you."

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-10-2016, 06:19 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2016 06:29 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 06:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  "alleged lawyer"? Dodgy

Go fuck yourself Vosur. That's super shitty, and you know it.
Oh yeah, are you a psychic now? Anyone can claim to be a Harvard lawyer on a personal Internet blog, so yes, I say alleged lawyer.

(06-10-2016 06:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I'm listening to it right now, and that is an important distinction. The FBI investigation also found evidence of thousands of clearly marked confidential email not being migrated. So yeah, when things were evidently marked as confidential with the proper headers, they were handled properly. Some however lacked the proper headers, and were mishandled. Should they have known better, taken better precautions? Yeah. But were they being purposely negligent with known classified material? The FBI did not think they were, and that is a huge distinguishing characteristic in comparison to all of the other Espionage Act cases he looked at.
You're not responding to the substance of my post. The only way for her and her aides not to have known that the material they handled was top secret is if they were unbelievably incompetent. It really is amazing that a classifying authority, i.e. a person who is responsible for looking at government documents and determining whether or not they contain classified information, can, with a straight face, tell the FBI that they didn't know that the e-mails they sent out contained classified information of the highest possible classification level and get away with it. The markings are irrelevant, by the way. Why do you think the people in the other cases didn't use this defense? Because it's a completely absurd excuse that wouldn't hold up in court! She's very lucky that she will never see trial because her friends in the DOJ decided not to take this case to court.

Edit: I don't know if you realize this, but information is classified as top secret when it concerns thing such as military drone strike programs. Have you become so gullible that you believe anyone in such a high government position could confuse information like that for unclassified information?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 06:31 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2016 06:51 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 05:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  ... the cases cited by this alleged lawyer ...

(06-10-2016 06:19 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Oh yeah, are you a psychic now? Anyone can claim to be a Harvard lawyer on a personal Internet blog, so yes, I say alleged lawyer.


Still as lazy as ever when it comes to doing your own research I see. This one was literally right next to his blog tab. About Andrew Torrez. and simple google search verifies his credentials. And I'm pretty sure the whole LLC part indicates it's a corporate blog not a personal blog. You're extremely lazy when shit don't match your cognitive biases.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
06-10-2016, 06:54 AM
RE: Trump's Taxes
Just in case the previous post was addressing me, someone needs to remind that dummy that he has been on my ignore list for weeks now.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2016, 07:21 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2016 07:55 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Trump's Taxes
(06-10-2016 06:54 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Just in case the previous post was addressing me, someone needs to remind that dummy that he has been on my ignore list for weeks now.

oh woe is me. My delicate Girly feelings are hurt. Like that's gonna stop me from pointing out your laziness and ignorance to everyone else. Your response is not required.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: