Corrupt DOJ Gives Evidence of What They Say Are Donald Trump Crimes - to His Lawyers.

originally posted by: Threadbare

You're the one that claimed he was cooperating with NARA. No need to get salty because you were clearly wrong.

I didn't use the word cooperating... There was a lot of back and forth, I said he was working with them. Was he making it difficult, yep... but that is nowhere near what Hillary did in setting up a secret server to operate outside of her official lanes, that was hacked, that she had documents destroyed, etc. etc. I'm not trying to whataboutism here... I'm talking about the precedent that was set by the FBI... AND she didn't have the full powers a president has.

If you really wanted to ask a question...what was Hillary doing with that server? But no, you can spend forever on Trump and not even bat an eye toward Hillary, and this is why I give you and a few others zero credibility to your remarks in the case.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Nope. Try again.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels

They didnt count on people seeing thru it and his poll numbers going up after the raid. So they had to double down. To the ridiculous.

I also believe it was to provide cover for old Joe too..... But the people saw thru that as wellllll


Like one of my favorite lady judges says 'They must think we are STUPID!' I laugh everytime.

This is like the 15th attempt to get Trump on anything they can, they don't think people see through it all?

originally posted by: Threadbare

Charging someone for obstruction when they intentionally hide evidence from investigators is BS?

You and I both know you can walk down the street and fart and get hit with 20 charges...

originally posted by: Threadbare

Nope. Try again.

Are you saying she didn't? Maybe read the FBI report again my friend...

a reply to: Xtrozero

I think you might want to read the report. You seem to be unclear on some key facts.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: frogs453

Willfully holding on to certain documents,destroying,not returning them are all subsections in the Espionage Act.

Interesting, so when does Hillary get out of jail as she did them all.

As soon as someone testifies, hear on audio that she discussed with non clear people, or we have testimony, text messages, surveillance video that she purposely hid,lied about, destroyed or discussed on audio any documents related to national security.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Threadbare

You're the one that claimed he was cooperating with NARA. No need to get salty because you were clearly wrong.

I didn't use the word cooperating... There was a lot of back and forth, I said he was working with them. Was he making it difficult, yep... but that is nowhere near what Hillary did in setting up a secret server to operate outside of her official lanes, that was hacked, that she had documents destroyed, etc. etc. I'm not trying to whataboutism here... I'm talking about the precedent that was set by the FBI... AND she didn't have the full powers a president has.

If you really wanted to ask a question...what was Hillary doing with that server? But no, you can spend forever on Trump and not even bat an eye toward Hillary, and this is why I give you and a few others zero credibility to your remarks in the case.

Since you keep repeating this, please provide a source other than Trump rages that states Clinton's server was hacked when she was SOS. As I certainly can't find one.

originally posted by: frogs453

Since you keep repeating this, please provide a source other than Trump rages that states Clinton's server was hacked when she was SOS. As I certainly can't find one.

After 15 seconds of searching...

Ever since Hillary Clinton admitted setting up a homebrew server in the basement of her Chappaqua home, one question has always hovered over the case: Did that system ever get hacked? On Friday, the FBI revealed that a hacker broke into an email account on that system.

In a summary of its investigation into Clinton’s use of private email released Friday, the FBI concluded that a username and password for an email account on the server — it’s not clear whose email beyond that it belonged to a woman working as an aide to former President Bill Clinton — was compromised by an unknown entity. That entity logged into the compromised email, read messages, and browsed attachments using a service called Tor.

That service allows a user to mask his or her physical location, and the FBI was unsuccessful in its efforts to determine who had logged into the Clinton email system and why.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Can I have the link please

ETA: Nevermind, I found it. So from there I went to the source they referenced and from there directly to documents released from the feds. Her server was never breached. A personal acquaintance was. So unless Hillary was emailing the friend classified info, which certainly the over 30 investigations did not find. There was no breach of info.

You can read the fbi report here

a reply to: frogs453

They were on Humas as well as her husbands laptop. You know that...

Link

The State Department on Friday released 2,800 work-related emails from Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, that were found by the FBI on the laptop computer of Abedin’s husband, disgraced former Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York. Five of the messages from Abedin were marked classified, like numerous other emails that were sent or received by Clinton or her aides then deemed classified by the State Department in the process of preparing them for public release in response to Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits.

Friday’s batch of emails is connected to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative group that is seeking access to work messages Abedin sent from a personal email account. Describing the release, a State Department spokesperson said the department “carefully reviews the content of records requested through FOIA to determine whether any information is sensitive or classified.” “Today’s production will have documents with classified information that has been redacted,” the spokesperson said. The emails that were deemed classified deal with talks between the Palestinian militant movement Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization; a call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; and conversations with the United Arab Emirates’ foreign minister.

Where are the charges? This is conspiracy. Nope. They gave her a pass....

Then-FBI Director James Comey wrote top congressional leaders that discovery of the messages meant that the bureau would review them in considering its conclusion about Clinton’s use of a private email server. Comey subsequently announced that the messages had not changed the FBI’s decision to not charge Clinton despite what it called her “extremely careless” handling of her email system.

and did you forget about the Clinton/Lynch meeting? Short memories on you guys...

originally posted by: frogs453

ETA: Nevermind, I found it. So from there I went to the source they referenced and from there directly to documents released from the feds. Her server was never breached. A personal acquaintance was. So unless Hillary was emailing the friend classified info, which certainly the over 30 investigations did not find. There was no breach of info.

You are trying really hard here while grabbing anything you can on Trump.

1. Did Hillay have a private server where she did private Sec of State work to include classified documents? That isn't illegal?
2. Was the server hackable? Could it have been hacked, did at least one person who had access to the server been hacked? It wasn't secured, to say the least...to the point the FBI would not be able to tell if it was hacked or not.
3. Did she knowingly destroy evidence during an official investigation? Not illegal? I think we could provide a dozen of broken laws just there.
4. Did she lie? I'll save you the work...she did, but the FBI said not under oath...lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

1. Can you point to the law that states it's illegal?
2. All servers are hackable. Including the government's.
3. No she didn't knowingly destroy evidence.
4. If she lied but it wasn't under oath what do toy want her charged with?

a reply to: carewemust

Corrupt DOJ sigh. That's a very weird way to title a post. If your Man is innocent, he will beat this as well. I'm afraid voters like you, are going to present Biden a 2nd term, on a silver platter. Trump's four years in office was awesome for me as well. Too bad he f'd up a 2nd term. Now he can't win.

originally posted by: matafuchs

and did you forget about the Clinton/Lynch meeting? Short memories on you guys...

It doesn't matter all these are nothing burgers to them while I suggest it actually sets precedence moving forward in Trump's case.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Hey, Trump and the GOP. Over 30 investigations, 11 hours of direct testimony. You can rant and rave and whatabout Hillary, but those 30 investigations found no charges warranted. If they did, then she would have gone through this exact same process, and I wouldn't make excuses for her, just as I am not for Trump. Heck the only people who complained about Hunters charges were MAGA. Nothing is ever right, or good enough.

originally posted by: Threadbare
1. Can you point to the law that states it's illegal?

At issue are four sections of the law: the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.

2. All servers are hackable. Including the government's.

Well, not all.. But this was a private unsecured server with official documents on it, there are a good number of laws associated with removing classified material that can get you 20 years.

3. No she didn't knowingly destroy evidence.

Lol, what does that even mean..so so weak. She had her people smash phones and use Bleachbit on the server. So she knowingly did something...I think you are just being obtuse here with this one...

4. If she lied but it wasn't under oath what do toy want her charged with?

Well, she lied but played the I didn't know game and the FBI didn't follow up on it. And when she did lie the FBI made sure she was not under oath which they would normally have a person be. Gamemanship there my friend. In both the cases of Trump and Hillary, you are not even trying to be consistent.

originally posted by: frogs453

Hey, Trump and the GOP. Over 30 investigations, 11 hours of direct testimony. You can rant and rave and whatabout Hillary, but those 30 investigations found no charges warranted. If they did, then she would have gone through this exact same process, and I wouldn't make excuses for her, just as I am not for Trump. Heck the only people who complained about Hunters charges were MAGA. Nothing is ever right, or good enough.

No, its called a double standard...

a reply to: Xtrozero

1. None of which are criminal statutes.
2. Cite the criminal statutes she violated by having the server.
3. Her IT company was instructed long before she was subpoenaed to wipe the server. The IT company dropped the ball and failed to do so. When she did get subpoenaed, her team reached out to the IT company and instructed them not to delete anything else. Somebody there then had an "Oh #" moment and realized they didn't delete the emails they had been told to delete months prior and proceeded to do so.

It should be noted that at the time the only emails remaining were personal. Her work emails had been archived and then wiped in compliance with government guidelines long before the subpoena.

As for the phones, please point out any evidence backing that claim up. There's testimony from one of her aides that she may have destroyed one of two of Clinton's phones during the years they worked for her when they malfunctioned. They did not testify to destroying phones after the subpoena was received.
4. So once again, you can't point to a criminal statute she violated. So what do you want her charged with?

a reply to: Threadbare

Imagine being the guy defending HRC while still going full bore to imprison Trump.


You arent serious people.