• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump still uses his personal cell phone despite warnings and increased call scrutiny

W_Heisenberg said:
Same e-mails.

The order to delete those e-mails came before the order from Congress to hand them over.

The FBI found many of the deleted e-mails, enough to determine there was nothing bad about them.
Click to expand...

So I take it that you're completely fine with lying, and destroying evidence in a federal investigation.. that's good to know.
 
Oborosen said:
We had the same issue with Obama, just let it die.

Warnings and increased scrutiny are not the DOD, or DOJ telling him that he cannot use his own phone. So long as he follows the necessary steps, he can still use it.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't use his Blackberry to call Ambassadors, Foreign service personnel, his Foreign Policy Team Leader Guiliani, etc.

Trump did on his Iphone.
 
Oborosen said:
None of us cared that the lot of you were sad that Epstein died either.

Then again, in Hillary's case. It was most likely that she had protection. Because I don't think it's legal for a person to destroy evidence, and public record. Especially when they're ordered to hand all of it over.

But it must've had some rather incriminating items on it, if she felt the need to erase all of it with the kind of software that they used.
Click to expand...


Hillary's emails were subpoenaed a few weeks after she instructed her server manager to delete them, which is the norm for personnel emails.


But, if security bothers you, why doesn't it bother you that, on national TV, Trump encouraged our enemy to commit cyber espionage on Hillary?


You're not being consistent, and "he was joking" is not a rebuttal. Because, it is clear he was not joking when he said it, he was damn serious.
 
OscarLevant said:
Obama didn't use his Blackberry to call Ambassadors, Foreign service personnel, his Foreign Policy Team Leader Guiliani, etc.

Trump did on his Iphone.
Click to expand...

I though he used the Batphone!

Rudy has a shoe phone.
 
Oborosen said:
Then you're welcome to run away if you like. Because I don't' see you showing me information that Obama didn't get to keep his Blackberry.

Just three politico writers who're waxing idiotic all over again.
Click to expand...

Obama, unlike Trump, was smart enough to not use his personnel cellphone to call Ambassadors, FSO's, Lawyers, etc
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Trump still uses his personal cell phone despite warnings and increased call scrutiny

Trump still uses his personal cell phone despite warnings and increased call scrutiny - CNNPolitics

President Donald Trump has continued to use his personal cell phone to make calls, despite repeated warnings from his staff that the practice could leave him vulnerable to foreign surveillance, multiple officials told CNN.

The Democratic impeachment inquiry has resurrected concerns about the security and potential vulnerability of the President's communications. Witness testimony revealed some top officials repeatedly failed to follow protocol intended to prevent sensitive phone conversations, including those involving the President, from being intercepted by foreign intelligence services

---

But but but her e-mails!

Trump and his supporters never cared about issues related to classified information or our national security with regard to the Clinton e-mail controversy. It was all just an excuse to attack Clinton.
Click to expand...

Hilarity told him it was no problem...
 
W_Heisenberg said:
I wasn't the one complaining about Clinton's e-mails to the point where I was suggesting she should be locked up...

Trump was...and so were Trump's cultish followers.
Click to expand...

Nah, there were NUMEROUS other reasons to lock her up.
 
OscarLevant said:
Obama didn't use his Blackberry to call Ambassadors, Foreign service personnel, his Foreign Policy Team Leader Guiliani, etc.

Trump did on his Iphone.
Click to expand...

We don't know what all Obama did with his blackberry, because no one even remotely cared.
 
OscarLevant said:
Hillary's emails were subpoenaed a few weeks after she instructed her server manager to delete them, which is the norm for personnel emails.


But, if security bothers you, why doesn't it bother you that, on national TV, Trump encouraged our enemy to commit cyber espionage on Hillary?


You're not being consistent, and "he was joking" is not a rebuttal. Because, it is clear he was not joking when he said it, he was damn serious.
Click to expand...

Then it was clear that Hillary intended to break the law and hide, or destroy evidence.

Good we can all play by your rules.
 
OscarLevant said:
Obama, unlike Trump, was smart enough to not use his personnel cellphone to call Ambassadors, FSO's, Lawyers, etc
Click to expand...

As stated before, no one cared what Obama did with his phone. So this idiocy with Trump and his own personal phone is nothing but another misplaced double standard.
 
Oborosen said:
So I take it that you're completely fine with lying, and destroying evidence in a federal investigation.. that's good to know.
Click to expand...

So you care about lying? Really?

trumpcell.jpg

:lamo
 
Not sure why trumps use if his phone matters, he is just saving Putin's boys from having to get transcripts later since they can listen in at the time. Efficiency is he name if the game here.
 
poweRob said:
So you care about lying? Really?

View attachment 67269677

:lamo
Click to expand...

Yeah theirs a part of me that suspects such a image supplied by one such as yourself.

Then again, I don't know just where the image was taken from and where the rest of the thread is on that line of dialogue. Because it's not like the lot of you have made a habit of taking what you can out of context, just to suit your agenda at this point.

So It's not like I'm going to trust someone who's relationship with the truth is as shaky as yours on the matter.

This still doesn't' prove me wrong on the fact that we could barely care about this when it was Obama still using his device, and I hardly see any real reason to care now.

That is unless you're willing to make something else up?
 
Oborosen said:
Yeah theirs a part of me that suspects such a image supplied by one such as yourself.

Then again, I don't know just where the image was taken from and where the rest of the thread is on that line of dialogue. Because it's not like the lot of you have made a habit of taking what you can out of context, just to suit your agenda at this point.

So It's not like I'm going to trust someone who's relationship with the truth is as shaky as yours on the matter.

This still doesn't' prove me wrong on the fact that we could barely care about this when it was Obama still using his device, and I hardly see any real reason to care now.

That is unless you're willing to make something else up?
Click to expand...

I see. When facts go against you, time to claim and create a new conspiracy theory. :lol:

Here you go... Trump's specific tweet. It's still out there:


So what is your denial now?
 
Oborosen said:
As stated before, no one cared what Obama did with his phone. So this idiocy with Trump and his own personal phone is nothing but another misplaced double standard.
Click to expand...


No one cared because Obama was trusted with the thing. Trump is a hypocrite, a criminal, an inveterate liar, and overall, a despicable human being that can't speak intelligently and anything he does should be suspect.

Hardly a double standard. Trump being not up to presidential standards, is more like it.
 
Oborosen said:
Then it was clear that Hillary intended to break the law and hide, or destroy evidence.

Good we can all play by your rules.
Click to expand...


So what law did she break? She directed her Attorneys to separate any work related emails form the personal, she relied on her staff to take care of it. This is in accordance with State dept policy, it is allowed.


Did she violate a subpoena? No evidence of that.


But, Trump has violated ALL subpoenas, won't turn over ANY documents which are NOT deleted, directed his staff to defy ALL subpoenas, in violation of the constitution, but I don't see you complaining about Trump.

there's a word for that, it starts with a H.
 
OscarLevant said:
No one cared because Obama was trusted with the thing. Trump is a hypocrite, a criminal, an inveterate liar, and overall, a despicable human being that can't speak intelligently and anything he does should be suspect.

Hardly a double standard. Trump being not up to presidential standards, is more like it.
Click to expand...

So yes, it is just a double standard, and seeing as Obama matches that same description.

It's a double standard that you're more than willing to lie about.
 
OscarLevant said:
So what law did she break? She directed her Attorneys to separate any work related emails form the personal, she relied on her staff to take care of it. This is in accordance with State dept policy, it is allowed.


Did she violate a subpoena? No evidence of that.


But, Trump has violated ALL subpoenas, won't turn over ANY documents which are NOT deleted, directed his staff to defy ALL subpoenas, in violation of the constitution, but I don't see you complaining about Trump.

there's a word for that, it starts with a H.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't because you don't care to actually know any of the facts on the matter. Nor do you actually care to learn for yourself.

Because we already know that classified, or otherwise sensitive emails were not supposed to be on those servers in the first place, and she was caught lying about sending such emails near the beginning to the whole mess. Grassley even came out and said that her use of the emails was most likely illegal in the first place.

◾The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
◾FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
◾The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
◾Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

This centered around multiple issue with her operating in this manner. Caused more than enough reason for us to investigate.

One question: Did Trump's staff defy those subpoenas, and if they did, what happened?
 
Oborosen said:
So I take it that you're completely fine with lying, and destroying evidence in a federal investigation.. that's good to know.
Click to expand...

Look at the timeline:

Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting a subpoena | PolitiFact

Let’s take a look at the timeline of relevant events, according to the FBI report. (The most pertinent information is on pages 15-19 of this document.)

Feb. 1, 2013: Clinton serves her last day as secretary of state.

July 23, 2014: The State Department reaches an agreement with the Benghazi committee about producing records for its investigation into the 2012 attack on a U.S. embassy in the Libyan city.

Oct. 28, 2014: The State Department sends an official letter to Clinton’s staff requesting "emails related to their government work." Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, and aide Cheryl Mills oversaw the review of Clinton’s email archives to produce work-related documents to the department.

Dec. 5, 2014: Clinton’s team provides 55,000 pages of emails, or about 30,000 individual emails, to the State Department. Mills tells an employee at Platte River Networks, which managed the server, that Clinton does not need to retain any emails older than 60 days.

March 2, 2015: The New York Times breaks the story that Clinton used a personal email account while secretary of state.

March 4, 2015: The Benghazi committee issues a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over all emails from her private server related to the incident in Libya.

Between March 25-31, 2015: The Platte River Networks employee has what he calls an "oh s---" moment, realizing he did not delete Clinton’s email archive, per Mills’ December 2014 request. The employee deletes the email archive using a software called BleachBit.

March 27, 2015: Clinton’s lawyers send a letter to the Benghazi committee saying that the State Department already has the relevant emails, as they were included in the Dec. 5, 2014, turnover.

However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.

The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own.

Clinton told the FBI that she did was not involved in deciding whether individual emails should be sent to State Department, nor "did she instruct anyone to delete her emails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information."
Click to expand...
 
smallvoice said:
Responsibility includes reporting to jail and turning herself in. So no, she didn’t take responsibility for her failure to obey the law.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No prison would accept her without a conviction by a jury. No conviction by a jury would occur if a prosecutor could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. No case could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt without proving her intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom