Convicted felon Donald Trump stole top secret nuclear docs - greatest security risk in US history

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Understanding legal news can be challenging and it's why I try to read the actual filings when possible. The affidavit filed by the FBI cites three laws that they are investigating Trump for as well as the timeline of events. 
 

I’m not inclined to take the allegations in an affidavit in a case like this at face value .  In my opinion it like reading a review of a Broadway play written by the actor who starred in the production.  
 

That’s not to say the affiant is lying or lacks credibility, I just as soon wait for the whole story to be told. 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

It's also important to note that there is a lot of silence (which is being filled in by the talking heads who may or may not actually know what they are talking about) because the DoJ rarely comments on ongoing investigations. The only reason we know about this investigation is because Trump confirmed it himself. 
 

You’ve said this before, and I’ll respond as I have previously.  They sent armed agents in tactical gear to beach the security of the home and seize documents they were authorized to seize and apparently many they were not.  
 

There have been numerous leaks about what was taken, said leaks coming from those inside the investigation, and alms initial reports may/may not be accurate.  
 

The Garland DOJ sent a clear message, and it was anything but on the downlow. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

So we don't know at what stage the investigation is in. Are we just starting out? In the middle? Close to the end? Tough to say. We can learn a bit through the ongoing filings between the DoJ and Trump in the 11th circuit and Judge Cannon's court, but we won't know much for certain until the DoJ either indicts Trump or announces their declination.

That  was my point on the slam dunk aspects of this case…there is so much we don’t know. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

In the meantime, I would not look to traditional media sources for good, nuanced reporting on legal matters. Look instead to the boring legal news outlets if you want to stay on top of it. Or read the filings when they are filed (the DoJ usually posts them to their site).

I’m not sure if this is a stylistic thing or not, but this comes off as a tad condescending and offputting.  Actually, more than a tad but whatever. 
 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Also, this is a long post so I don't want to spend much time on this, but I think you've been misstating the facts of the Hillary investigation.

That’s always possible. I’m happy to consider feedback but remember, I’m but a simple country bumpkin who gets his legal analysis from the Local Pennysaver.  Dumb it down for me. 😎

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m not inclined to take the allegations in an affidavit in a case like this at face value .  In my opinion it like reading a review of a Broadway play written by the actor who starred in the production.  
 

That’s not to say the affiant is lying or lacks credibility, I just as soon wait for the whole story to be told. 

 

That's fine, but in the absence of public court proceedings, I think sworn documents filed with a court should be given more weight than conjecture or statements made to the media.

 

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You’ve said this before, and I’ll respond as I have previously.  They sent armed agents in tactical gear to beach the security of the home and seize documents they were authorized to seize and apparently many they were not.  
 

There have been numerous leaks about what was taken, said leaks coming from those inside the investigation, and alms initial reports may/may not be accurate.  
 

The Garland DOJ sent a clear message, and it was anything but on the downlow. 

 

Everything I've seen stated that the FBI conducted the search in plain clothes and were guided around by the Secret Service detail. Additionally, I believe that Mar A Lago was closed the day of the search.

 

I'd be very careful about ascribing a source to leaks. While it is possible that leaks come from the FBI, it's just as possible (if not more likely) that they come from Trump's camp.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

That  was my point on the slam dunk aspects of this case…there is so much we don’t know. 

 

There's much we don't know about the stage of the investigation but we can apply the facts to the law. For at least 18 USC 2071, all of the elements are met by the known facts of the case.

 

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m not sure if this is a stylistic thing or not, but this comes off as a tad condescending and offputting.  Actually, more than a tad but whatever. 

I apologize, I did not mean to be condescending. I just wanted to make clear that traditional media is generally quite poor about reporting on legal news. When I see something involving the law in the news, I generally try to find a story on it from a publication that focuses on the law as opposed to traditional media outlets that might not fully understand the nuances.

 

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That’s always possible. I’m happy to consider feedback but remember, I’m but a simple country bumpkin who gets his legal analysis from the Local Pennysaver.  Dumb it down for me. 😎

 

While the deletion of the emails is a lightning rod in the news and this board, here is what Comey said about it in the context of the FBI's investigation:

 

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department."

 

I certainly don't want to be in the position of defending Hillary. I don't care for her, I didn't vote for her, and I blame her for Trump being elected president. But if we're going to criticize her, I'd prefer it for the things she actually did.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

That's fine, but in the absence of public court proceedings, I think sworn documents filed with a court should be given more weight than conjecture or statements made to the media.

That's fine, too, but I am neither as trusting nor as inclined to believe it's all just the work product of an honest day's work.

 

 

16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

Everything I've seen stated that the FBI conducted the search in plain clothes and were guided around by the Secret Service detail. Additionally, I believe that Mar A Lago was closed the day of the search.

 

I'd be very careful about ascribing a source to leaks. While it is possible that leaks come from the FBI, it's just as possible (if not more likely) that they come from Trump's camp.

 

 

 

There's much we don't know about the stage of the investigation but we can apply the facts to the law. For at least 18 USC 2071, all of the elements are met by the known facts of the case.

 

I apologize, I did not mean to be condescending. I just wanted to make clear that traditional media is generally quite poor about reporting on legal news. When I see something involving the law in the news, I generally try to find a story on it from a publication that focuses on the law as opposed to traditional media outlets that might not fully understand the nuances.

No problem, and I have considered the agenda of players and attempted to suppress my own innate bias.  

16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

 

While the deletion of the emails is a lightning rod in the news and this board, here is what Comey said about it in the context of the FBI's investigation:

 

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department."

 

I certainly don't want to be in the position of defending Hillary. I don't care for her, I didn't vote for her, and I blame her for Trump being elected president. But if we're going to criticize her, I'd prefer it for the things she actually did.

This doesn't push the envelope in the direction you suggest in my opinion. 

 

The Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena on March 4, 2015.  Between March 25-31, 2015, 30,000 emails were deleted from the servers, seemingly in violation of the subpoena.  

 

The story goes that folks in the Clinton orbit knew of the subpoena, but somehow misunderstood what it all meant.  And that the technician who deleted the files in defiance of the subpoena misremembered forgetting to delete 30,000 emails from a year earlier, and decided unilaterally to delete files covered by the subpoena, subsequently received immunity from prosecution because...something...and later on refused to provide testimony as his right under the constitution.  

 

Hillary Clinton was never going to jail, and they were never going to lock her up.  She is too big to fail, with too many friends in high places.  I believe, however, that the average guy on the street deleting a whole sh-t trove of emails addressed by a court order would be thrilled beyond belief to have the courtesy extended to Clinton extended to his situation. 

 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/298272-fbi-no-evidence-clinton-ordered-deletion-of-subpoenaed-email-archive/

 

 

I'm no Clinton fan, but am not interested in hanging accusations around her neck that are untrue or malicious.  However, it seems exceedingly unlikely that she and her team simply had an oopsie-daisy  three weeks after a court-order was issued to retain documents, that 30,000 were deleted with extreme prejudice, especially in light of the fact that this was a story that had international significance and was the subject of endless, non-stop scrutiny. 

 

I most definitely feel 100% comfortable in saying the story as spun makes very, very little sense outside the fact that in Washington, weird sh*t happens and powerful people get benefits the average guy does not. 

 

[Doc]

What Hilly did was far worse.  She deleted e-mails after being told not to do so and it doesn't strain credulity to believe she did it for nefarious reasons.  But we'll never know what those emails contained because they're gone.  Trump OTOH took material he allegedly shouldn't have taken and the government reclaimed it.  If the reason to indict him is just that and there's no intent, much less use of the material for personal gain, it's a pretty lame charge.  But by all means, indict him and get him out of DeSantis' way.

[Sundancer]

17 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That's the narrative, but there have been no charges filed, no testimony given, no questioning of witnesses in a court room setting.  It remains to be seen if the laws governing this sort of alleged behavior are those a reasonable prosecutor would pursue, and/or whether or not a reasonable prosecutor is making the determination.

 

What we do have is a cascade of anonymous DOJ sources, some apparently in conflict with others, as is par for the course when the the government squeezes an individual.  

 

As I indicated---it was an unforced error on his part, it didn't need to happen, and there was no need to expose his throat to a wolf he surely knows is lurking nearby.  Do you think we're in disagreement here? 

 

That changes nothing with respect to Hillary Clinton, which was part of the post I replied to. 

 

 

 

You are the Apologist King. 

 

13 hours ago, Doc said:

What Hilly did was far worse.  She deleted e-mails after being told not to do so and it doesn't strain credulity to believe she did it for nefarious reasons.  But we'll never know what those emails contained because they're gone.  Trump OTOH took material he allegedly shouldn't have taken and the government reclaimed it.  If the reason to indict him is just that and there's no intent, much less use of the material for personal gain, it's a pretty lame charge.  But by all means, indict him and get him out of DeSantis' way.

 

Well, he also lied and said he returned everything, when he didn't. And he said they were declassified, when they weren't. So although you're eager to find Hillary's intent, perhaps don't be so quick to ignore Trump's. 

 

BTW, I think in both cases, their intent was to cover up their f$%#-ups, not to sell things to foreign powers. 

17 hours ago, Demongyz said:

Did Hillary just delete all the emails or did she return them?

 

Hi there. That's whataboutism. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

14 hours ago, Doc said:

What Hilly did was far worse.  She deleted e-mails after being told not to do so and it doesn't strain credulity to believe she did it for nefarious reasons.  But we'll never know what those emails contained because they're gone.  Trump OTOH took material he allegedly shouldn't have taken and the government reclaimed it.  If the reason to indict him is just that and there's no intent, much less use of the material for personal gain, it's a pretty lame charge.  But by all means, indict him and get him out of DeSantis' way.

In the case of Hillary there were a lot of details left unexplained or not disclosed.

 

First she was not the President.  The role and function and legal status of the President is different from any other citizen.

An explanation of why she didn't she use the Department of State e-mail server resources and addresses for the Secretary of State that were secure and under the control of security "experts" in the department?

An explanation of why she didn't seek official approval for an exemption and submit to the required security review of both justification and inspection of the home set up?

An explanation of why she refused to allow the FBI to examine the servers AFTER the hack of the e-mail system was reported?  

An explanation of why the AG and FBI didn't go to the FISA or other Federal court and request a warrant to seize the machines?  It was a national security threat?  Right?

An explanation of why after receiving a legal order to "preserve evidence" her team defied and ignored a legal order and deleted and removed e-mails and files from the machines?  And why they weren't arrested?

Comey concluded a reasonable prosecutor would not decide to press charges given the circumstances.  But he's not a prosecutor.  He's the head of the FBI and he has no formal authority to decide what the DOJ will and will not prosecute.  Why didn't anyone in the AG's office chime in on the decision to not proceed with charges? 

I could go on but you get the idea.

 

If I replaced the names of the actors in this scene with other names like mine or anyone here I have no doubts we would have been subject to prosecution and punishment to the full extent of the law.  Can anyone believe otherwise?  But being Hillary Clinton, a member of the American political class, she got a pass.  Its that simple.  To argue otherwise is to ignore the reality.

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

This back and forth is a microcosm of the stupidity that bias manifests in the electorate.

 

oops Hillary just made a silly goof. Someone as calculating as Hillary also a lawyer btw didn’t know what she was doing? a former First Lady that becomes Secretary of State, that sets up her own email server didn’t realize state secrets would be in her mails? 😂 bullish!t. She did what elitist do and did what was convenient for her. 

 

and Trump???  He took those “beautiful yuge documents because they’re mine and symbolic of how awesome I the Don am.” He’s an egomaniacal narcissist. 
 

at the end of the day both these things are virtually identical and both should be fined and removed from office contention, if we are serious about our secrets.
 

Or change the law to read how it’s really enforced which is the protected class is above the law

 

or

 

the current political climate inside the prosecution entity dictates enforcement. 

[sherpa]

These people do things habitually that would get a military officer court martialed immediately.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

49 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

You are the Apologist King. 
 

 

This is gibberish, much like the nonsensical conspiracy post you spun on the Pelosi reporting. 
 

Trump created his own mess by taking/keeping data he should not have. 
 

The DOJ is not his friend, the democrat majority is not an ally, and by allegedly taking material that he should not have.  As a result, he should have assumed that at some point, armed agents in tactical gear would raid his home and seize property contained therein. 
 

When the DOJ decided to raid his home, they sent a large squad of officers in tactical gear,  they reportedly instructed people at the home to shut off security cameras. They allegedly took material covered by the subpoena, and a substantial amount of material they should not have seized.  That data is reported to have included tax records and a trove of attorney-client material. 
 

There have been multiple leaks attributed to people involved  in the investigation about what may/may not have been there.  Some of these reports are in conflict.  
 

The DOJ took the time to photograph files and documents purported to contain material that was confidential+ and released it to the media.  
 

The DOJ, upon seizing documents that they should not have seized (allegedly), claimed to the court that the need for an independent party to look at the material and protect the interests of all parties would jeopardize national security and besides, they could sort through the material and be trusted to do the right thing.  
 

If Donald Trump was trading in top secret and confidential information, he should be charged, convicted and jailed in accordance with the laws of the land that are applicable.  
 

If his actions were not nefarious, and a matter of what he may/may not have been able to declassify, and it turns out the DOJ was acting in a partisan political fashion, those that authorized the raid and seizure should be held accountable. 
 

If, when applying current law and standards to the situation he violated a law that is a law, but one of those laws that isn’t really acted upon, like one that is law-ish or law-like but not really law-law, it should  be handled as such.  
 

Now, tell me where we disagree, tell me how I’m apologizing for the actions of DJT, and try to use words in sequence that make sense.  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sundancer]

55 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

This is gibberish, much like the nonsensical conspiracy post you spun on the Pelosi reporting. 
 

 

Erm. I spun a conspiracy about Pelosi? 

 

No. I called out all the garbage being posted here as conspiracy hype. 

 

55 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Trump created his own mess by taking/keeping data he should not have. 
 

The DOJ is not his friend, the democrat majority is not an ally, and by allegedly taking material that he should not have.  As a result, he should have assumed that at some point, armed agents in tactical gear would raid his home and seize property contained therein. 
 

When the DOJ decided to raid his home, they sent a large squad of officers in tactical gear,  they reportedly instructed people at the home to shut off security cameras. They allegedly took material covered by the subpoena, and a substantial amount of material they should not have seized.  That data is reported to have included tax records and a trove of attorney-client material. 
 

There have been multiple leaks attributed to people involved  in the investigation about what may/may not have been there.  Some of these reports are in conflict.  
 

The DOJ took the time to photograph files and documents purported to contain material that was confidential+ and released it to the media.  
 

The DOJ, upon seizing documents that they should not have seized (allegedly), claimed to the court that the need for an independent party to look at the material and protect the interests of all parties would jeopardize national security and besides, they could sort through the material and be trusted to do the right thing.  
 

If Donald Trump was trading in top secret and confidential information, he should be charged, convicted and jailed in accordance with the laws of the land that are applicable.  
 

If his actions were not nefarious, and a matter of what he may/may not have been able to declassify, and it turns out the DOJ was acting in a partisan political fashion, those that authorized the raid and seizure should be held accountable. 
 

If, when applying current law and standards to the situation he violated a law that is a law, but one of those laws that isn’t really acted upon, like one that is law-ish or law-like but not really law-law, it should  be handled as such.  
 

Now, tell me where we disagree, tell me how I’m apologizing for the actions of DJT, and try to use words in sequence that make sense.  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what about the part where he represented more than once that he had turned over all the top secret information? Ya know, the actual act that prompted the raid? You left out a wee little piece of this, didn't you Apologist King?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

23 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

Erm. I spun a conspiracy about Pelosi? 

 

No. I called out all the garbage being posted here as conspiracy hype. 

You didn't call out garbage, you created a narrative the didn't exist, took more positions than are detailed the Kama Sutra, and eventually when you ran out of rope you suggested I said something was "fishy" when I said it was "odd".  Why did you do that? 

 

You are scoundrel, sir, and as we're about to see below, unwilling to back up that which you claim.  

23 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

 

 

And what about the part where he represented more than once that he had turned over all the top secret information? Ya know, the actual act that prompted the raid? You left out a wee little piece of this, didn't you Apologist King?

The world is full of small-minded, straight line, and fixed mindset people.  I don't know if you're one of them generally, you might be a real hoot at neighborhood game night on a Friday in the suburbs.  I do know you show all the signs of having such limitations here, on this part of the board. 

 

I've addressed Donald Trump being charged, found guilty and convicted.  I've addressed alternate outcomes based on facts known and unknown.  I don't know what the outcome will be, because I know I don't have all the facts.   That hardly makes me an apologist, but it most definitely shows the wisdom of recognizing there are several potential outcomes to this as yet unresolved political theater.  To close one's mind and completely disregard potential outcomes is the sign of a dullard, and I think that describes you quite well. 

 

Look before you leap, Sunny, and remember that fools rush in.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

Attorney General Merrick Garland to name special counsel in Trump criminal probe, report says

 

Liberals are going to be mad, but this is absolutely the correct call. 

[Sundancer]

4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You didn't call out garbage, you created a narrative the didn't exist, took more positions than are detailed the Kama Sutra, and eventually when you ran out of rope you suggested I said something was "fishy" when I said it was "odd".  Why did you do that? 

 

What in god's holy hell are you talking about? 

 

Get a grip on reality Neo. You've been in the Matrix too long. 

 

I called out nuts who spun conspiracies out of whole cloth. Naked man. Two hammers. Gay lover. 

 

 

4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

You are scoundrel, sir, and as we're about to see below, unwilling to back up that which you claim.  

The world is full of small-minded, straight line, and fixed mindset people.  I don't know if you're one of them generally, you might be a real hoot at neighborhood game night on a Friday in the suburbs.  I do know you show all the signs of having such limitations here, on this part of the board. 

 

I've addressed Donald Trump being charged, found guilty and convicted.  I've addressed alternate outcomes based on facts known and unknown.  I don't know what the outcome will be, because I know I don't have all the facts.   That hardly makes me an apologist, but it most definitely shows the wisdom of recognizing there are several potential outcomes to this as yet unresolved political theater.  To close one's mind and completely disregard potential outcomes is the sign of a dullard, and I think that describes you quite well. 

 

Look before you leap, Sunny, and remember that fools rush in.  

 

 

Seems like in the list of what if Trump did this and what if Trump did that you posted, you keep ignoring the fact that I keep bringing up. 

 

How to be the Apologist King:

 

Dig hole

Insert head

Fill in hole

 

And this is the sane Bills politics board!

 

 

[Tiberius]

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Sundancer said:

 

What in god's holy hell are you talking about? 

 

Get a grip on reality Neo. You've been in the Matrix too long. 

 

I called out nuts who spun conspiracies out of whole cloth. Naked man. Two hammers. Gay lover. 

 

 

 

Seems like in the list of what if Trump did this and what if Trump did that you posted, you keep ignoring the fact that I keep bringing up. 

 

How to be the Apologist King:

 

Dig hole

Insert head

Fill in hole

 

And this is the sane Bills politics board!

 

 

Things are becoming a bit clearer to me as you continue to share thoughts about "nuts", their "naked man" talk, "conspiracies" and this being the "board" versus, I assume, some other place that isn't sane.  I think now I can understand why someone like you would feel the need to take a stand against all these...conspiratorial factions...and places....and all these disturbing things said there.  

 

I do want to tell you that The Matrix was a movie, and my name is not Neo.  I also want you to know leh-nerd skin-erd is not my real name, and I don't use that to try and trick anyone or imply that I wrote or sang "Free Bird".  Just to be crystal clear, in the event it comes up, I have sung along to Free Bird quite often, mostly in the car or at a party.  I'm just not the person you hear when it plays on the radio. 

 

Godspeed, son, on fighting this good fight against nuts, real or imagined, here on the sane board, or wherever it is the non-sane board lurks.  

 

 

[Tiberius]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Sundancer]

23 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Things are becoming a bit clearer to me as you continue to share thoughts about "nuts", their "naked man" talk, "conspiracies" and this being the "board" versus, I assume, some other place that isn't sane.  I think now I can understand why someone like you would feel the need to take a stand against all these...conspiratorial factions...and places....and all these disturbing things said there.  

 

I do want to tell you that The Matrix was a movie, and my name is not Neo.  I also want you to know leh-nerd skin-erd is not my real name, and I don't use that to try and trick anyone or imply that I wrote or sang "Free Bird".  Just to be crystal clear, in the event it comes up, I have sung along to Free Bird quite often, mostly in the car or at a party.  I'm just not the person you hear when it plays on the radio. 

 

Godspeed, son, on fighting this good fight against nuts, real or imagined, here on the sane board, or wherever it is the non-sane board lurks.  

 

 

Your common moves:

 

- make excuses for MAGA and the conspiracy gang here

- preach from your high horse

- leap to whataboutism when things are ugly for you

- avoid inconvenient facts like you’re doing in this exchange

 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

42 minutes ago, Sundancer said:

Your common moves:

 

- make excuses for MAGA and the conspiracy gang here

- preach from your high horse

- leap to whataboutism when things are ugly for you

- avoid inconvenient facts like you’re doing in this exchange

Now, in addition to your naked man there is a conspiracy gang runnin’ the sane political board? 
 

Everything will work itself out, Sunny.  Keep your chin up. 

[Sundancer]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Now, in addition to your naked man there is a conspiracy gang runnin’ the sane political board? 

 

What crap are you making up now? 

 

Stick to your two hammer theories and apologizing for MAGA. You are better at jumping on others’ conspiracies than creating them yourself. @SDSruns TBD and allows this hole to exist because he somehow enjoys what it brings to the overall site. The gang doesn’t run it. They just hang out here and post non-stop. (Seriously, has B-Man ever worked a day in his life?)