I would be careful quoting anything from Turley, he tends to be a bit of a grifter and conspiracy nutjob, among other things.
Grifter? No. But he is white pill.
Last edited:
I would be careful quoting anything from Turley, he tends to be a bit of a grifter and conspiracy nutjob, among other things.
Whilst I do believe what she did was stupid, wrong and quite likey illegal, is that not technically accurate? I'm not aware of any allegations that her emails did contain specifically classified documents rather than simply being a case of of government records improperly stored. Which, ironically, is the problem with what trump did too even if we ignore the classification issue.The sheer, absolute, complete bold faced lie on this woman. Amazing to see. Bonus points to all the NPCs and 101% real people in the comments agreeing and urging her to run again and how much they love her.
Well, Things may be unravelling for the FBI and DOJ.
Ummm...dude...the investigating agent stated to congress that there was indeed classified material on her email servers, and that it was indeed a crime, but it's OK because there was no intent for the crime. So they weren't going to pursue charges and the AG shouldn't either.Whilst I do believe what she did was stupid, wrong and quite likey illegal, is that not technically accurate? I'm not aware of any allegations that her emails did contain specifically classified documents rather than simply being a case of of government records improperly stored. Which, ironically, is the problem with what trump did too even if we ignore the classification issue.
"In the recent coverage that references her emails, former FBI Director James Comey is sometimes quoted as saying that of the 33,000 Clinton emails examined by bureau investigators, three had classification markings. That’s less than one-hundredth of one percent, and not worth comparing to Trump’s malfeasance anyway, but it’s still false -- apparently meant to bolster Comey’s absurd claim that other Clinton emails were “classified” although never marked as such.Ummm...dude...the investigating agent stated to congress that there was indeed classified material on her email servers, and that it was indeed a crime, but it's OK because there was no intent for the crime. So they weren't going to pursue charges and the AG shouldn't either.
In fact, this statute specifically DOES NOT require intent. Merely the fact of you mishandling the classifed data is justification for you to lose your clearance, lose your job, and get time at Leavenworth.
As for Trump, you CAN'T ignore the classification issue. If it's no longer classified, then there are NO security requirements for the storage of that info. Despite this, Trump agreed to store the material per instructions from the National Archives (extra lock). The raid is complete bogus and an exercise political ass covering by the FBI and Biden Admin.
I mean, there were inquiries launched by two trump appointed secretaries of state. Both Rex tillerson and Mike pompeo had a go criticising and disagreeing with her. The first found that her actions were in keeping with proper security protocol but improper for being unethical which is the same as was the case for Colin Powell or Karl Rove, and better than was the case with Ivanka's own use of a personal email account.The only reason she gets away with it is because, like the rest of the establishment, she exist within a seemingly-impenetrable echo chamber where nobody would even think to criticize or disagree with her. From her perspective, she is the god of her own little world; and our lot in life is to be her worshipers.
As for the classification mattering with Trump... It is not about the security standards for handling the documents. Or at least, not entirely. The more important issue (And I'm saying this for what has to be at least the 10th time.) is that they were government records. Trump was not the government. He should not have taken them. They asked for them back. He should have given them. Instead, he and his people hid them, obfuscated things, and outright lied that they didn't have any.
hell Clinton took the silverware and more alongside some documents just because.You can say it ten times, you can say it a hundred times, that does not make this true.
The president is allowed to take records with him when he leaves office. Not only that, but Trump is far from being the only President to do so; I believe every living president has such.
Here, I'll post this again:
Presidential records found right in Clinton’s drawer
A 2012 court case denying access to White House audiotapes kept in former President Bill Clinton’s sock drawer after he left office could help the Trump legal team in its battle to retrieve records that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago this month.www.washingtontimes.com
Standing legal precedent is that the President gets to determine what is and is not a personal record. Why are you even posting on this thread if you aren't going to listen to anything anyone else says?
Lol, that's pretty rich. Look back through, and how many times do you count me saying "It's not about the classification." and someone else replying with some variant of "But he did declassify them!"? As for the article, it's behind a pay wall. Since I've got no interest in giving money to the mouthpiece of some cultist nutjob, I guess we're at an impasse on debating that.You can say it ten times, you can say it a hundred times, that does not make this true.
The president is allowed to take records with him when he leaves office. Not only that, but Trump is far from being the only President to do so; I believe every living president has such.
Here, I'll post this again:
Presidential records found right in Clinton’s drawer
A 2012 court case denying access to White House audiotapes kept in former President Bill Clinton’s sock drawer after he left office could help the Trump legal team in its battle to retrieve records that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago this month.www.washingtontimes.com
Standing legal precedent is that the President gets to determine what is and is not a personal record. Why are you even posting on this thread if you aren't going to listen to anything anyone else says?
Actually, Trump has every right to hold onto his personal records from his time in office, and anything else he declassified; his standing order that anything at MAL was declassed seems to be being ignored by you and the Biden Admin."In the recent coverage that references her emails, former FBI Director James Comey is sometimes quoted as saying that of the 33,000 Clinton emails examined by bureau investigators, three had classification markings. That’s less than one-hundredth of one percent, and not worth comparing to Trump’s malfeasance anyway, but it’s still false -- apparently meant to bolster Comey’s absurd claim that other Clinton emails were “classified” although never marked as such.
Those three State Department documents were “call sheets,” innocuous memos reminding Clinton to make scheduled phone calls. During her FBI interview, investigators showed her one of those memos, reminding her to place a condolence call to the president of Malawi--not exactly a top secret matter. As Comey himself later admitted, any classification marking on that sheet had been wrongly applied."
As for the classification mattering with Trump... It is not about the security standards for handling the documents. Or at least, not entirely. The more important issue (And I'm saying this for what has to be at least the 10th time.) is that they were government records. Trump was not the government. He should not have taken them. They asked for them back. He should have given them. Instead, he and his people hid them, obfuscated things, and outright lied that they didn't have any.
It should not be controversial, or even need saying, that the government has the right to possess government records. These were not notes trump wrote as reminders to himself, or polling figures from his election campaign. They were reports from government agencies. As soon as trump stopped being president, regardless of his clearance to know the information in them, he had absolutely no more right to possess or even access them than any other member of the public.
Lol, that's pretty rich. Look back through, and how many times do you count me saying "It's not about the classification." and someone else replying with some variant of "But he did declassify them!"? As for the article, it's behind a pay wall. Since I've got no interest in giving money to the mouthpiece of some cultist nutjob, I guess we're at an impasse on debating that.
Actually, Trump has every right to hold onto his personal records from his time in office, and anything else he declassified; his standing order that anything at MAL was declassed seems to be being ignored by you and the Biden Admin.
Also, where do you think Obama, Bush, and Clinton got all the stuff for their 'presidential libraries'; what Trump did is not out of the ordinary, most POTUS's do similar when leaving office.
Of course people like you do not care how many laws, legal precedents, and limits are broken to get at Trump, and you uncritically believe the mainstream lies about Trump, so you parrot the same bullshit talking points the other NPCs say.
Yep.people kinda forget that if a President decides to declassify everything, burn every single foreign asset/spy in the field. Out every single secret up too and including ordering no redactions from what I understand that President has the power to do so, irrespective of the national and international damage it would do.
Yep.
The POTUS has sole delassification authority, and while they are still POTUS, they can declass anything they want, at any time they wish. However a sitting POTUS does not have the power to reclassify things a previous president declassed, which seems to be what Biden is attempting to do with his raid and the bullshit the powers in DC are spinning to justify it.
And plenty of people who already hated Trump or just disliked him aren't going to be interested in the details of why what happened is illegal and a massive breach of US legal precedent, most will only hear the spin and look no farther or do not want to see anything saying they are wrong.
We are a banana republic because of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and I doubt our old Constitutional republic will ever be restored so long as things continue as they are.
Again, we aren't Rome, and no 'modernaity' is not what has caused this mess.We arn't a banna republic because of TDS, we are a banana republic because modernity or our part of the civilizational cycle is ending, and during that period what normally happens is that elites become cultlike and stupid. Same shit went down during the end of the roman republic.
Again, we aren't Rome, and no 'modernaity' is not what has caused this mess.
Working under those assumptions is why the Right in the US keeps losing ground; it's makes them operate under false assumptions about sources and solutions to issues.
But I know you and many others on the Right have a boner for seeing the US as Rome and wanting to make predictions of it to cope with how things are spiraling out of control.
We are in uncharted civilizational waters because of the tech and weapons we as a nation and frankly species possess, and you fools keep wanting to wax on about fucking lead drinkers like they were the height of human civilization and everyone is doomed to repeat their cycle.
What do you mean undefeated?Losing ground?
The rights been undefeated in the culture war for about two years running and its actually spilling over to the institutional conflict now.
This is quite a fascinating topic, and I'm really glad it's been brought up. However, I have to say that upon reading the decision I don't think it's nearly as on point as you allege. [edit: this got super long so I'll put the quoted passages in spoilers, with minor exceptions.]The relevant part of the article is above the paywall 'cover.'
Since apparently this is too hard for you though, I'll make it even simpler.
Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute
Judge ruled in 2012 that a president's discretion to declare records "personal" is far-reaching and mostly unchallengeable.justthenews.com
And here's the money quote:
"
"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.
"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.
"
To emphasize:
"In his sole discretion."
What do you mean undefeated?
-
What do you mean undefeated?
-