This is why Trump can't Hire Quality People in The White House

haymarket · Jul 14, 2017

Born Free said:
yeah well to a leftist, to grow the economy means throw money at it and problem solved. 10 TRILLION in 8 yrs and an anemic GDP to show for it is not my idea of progress. Far from it. I call that a total failure.

An anemic economy is what Obama inherited from his predecessor.

code1211 · Jul 15, 2017

Unitedwestand13 said:
So.........

Why are the republicans in charge of the house and senate or the current administration doing anything about it?

Courtesy. Favoritism. In their place, I would put equality before the law above either.

Such is the state of our legal system.

I wonder how Kristian Saucier feels about this non-enforcement of the law that put him in jail for a year...

code1211 · Jul 15, 2017

Moot said:
Then you must blind. See post # 15....

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gove...lity-people-white-house-2.html#post1067391754

With as much respect as I can muster, what you posted reinforces the need for prosecution.

Born Free · Jul 15, 2017

haymarket said:
An anemic economy is what Obama inherited from his predecessor.

And after 10 trillion of borrowed money in 8 yrs we still ended up with an anemic economy. And you call that progress???

haymarket · Jul 15, 2017

Born Free said:
And after 10 trillion of borrowed money in 8 yrs we still ended up with an anemic economy. And you call that progress???

Tell that to the stock market.

Moot · Jul 15, 2017

code1211 said:
With as much respect as I can muster, what you posted reinforces the need for prosecution.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

What I posted proves she didn't break any laws...and that's why you ignored it. Apparently, it didn't fit your lying, deceitful narrative.

Born Free · Jul 15, 2017

haymarket said:
Tell that to the stock market.

I didn't know Obama borrowed 10 Trillion to raise the stock market for the rich. If that's the case I'm happy, but what about the poor and middle class. Those are the ones you completely forgot and could care less about.

haymarket · Jul 15, 2017

Born Free said:
I didn't know Obama borrowed 10 Trillion to raise the stock market for the rich. If that's the case I'm happy, but what about the poor and middle class. Those are the ones you completely forgot and could care less about.

sorry- I have no idea what you are now upset about.

code1211 · Jul 16, 2017

Moot said:
:roll: :roll: :roll:

What I posted proves she didn't break any laws...and that's why you ignored it. Apparently, it didn't fit your lying, deceitful narrative.

Proves? You have a low threshold for proof.

At least this shows that you have no doubt that no laws have broken by Trump.

And what I posted shows that laws were broken by Clinton and that she did so knowingly and then tried to cover it up.

The authorities, seemingly, elected to give her a pass.

The same legally stratified interpretations that allow tickets to be issued for Driving While Black allow Hillary to go free.

Our legal system has been perverted to a system that strives to maintain a caste system.

Adam's asserting that "We are a nation of laws, not men" seems to be a quaint, naive notion in today's world.

You seem to endorse this perversion with full throated glee. It's very sad...

Common Sense 1 · Jul 16, 2017

Moot said:
:roll: :roll: :roll:

What I posted proves she didn't break any laws...and that's why you ignored it. Apparently, it didn't fit your lying, deceitful narrative.

No it does not... It just proves that the Obama DOJ would not prosecute crooked Hillary.

Remember when Attorney General Lynch told then FBI director Comney to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter"!
Talk about a lying, deceitful narrative from the Obama Attorney General!

And what about the special secret meeting between Lynch and Billy on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor.

Moot · Jul 16, 2017

code1211 said:
Proves? You have a low threshold for proof.

At least this shows that you have no doubt that no laws have broken by Trump.

And what I posted shows that laws were broken by Clinton and that she did so knowingly and then tried to cover it up.

The authorities, seemingly, elected to give her a pass.

The same legally stratified interpretations that allow tickets to be issued for Driving While Black allow Hillary to go free.

Our legal system has been perverted to a system that strives to maintain a caste system.

Adam's asserting that "We are a nation of laws, not men" seems to be a quaint, naive notion in today's world.

You seem to endorse this perversion with full throated glee. It's very sad...

I showed and provided a link to the State Department and NARA regulations regarding emails. Did you find anything that said personal email accounts were illegal?

Last I checked, right wing dribble and butt hurt wasn't the law.

Moot · Jul 16, 2017

Common Sense 1 said:
No it does not... It just proves that the Obama DOJ would not prosecute crooked Hillary.

Remember when Attorney General Lynch told then FBI director Comney to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter"!
Talk about a lying, deceitful narrative from the Obama Attorney General!

And what about the special secret meeting between Lynch and Billy on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor.

Name calling and labeling doesn't prove someone was "crooked"...no matter how many times you repeat it. You actually have to have evidence and show "intent"....and after four long years of congressional partisan witch hunting...the GOP couldn't find a damn thing to indict her with. And my, what a ****ing waste of tax payer dollars that was, too.

I don't know what transpired on the tarmac...except to say that was the reason that Comey said he went public with the FBI's findings about the Clinton emails. At the end of his long list of alleged wrong doings...he had to admit they didn't find anything to indict her with. In other words, there was no there, there.

It was all just partisan hype to bring Clinton's high ratings down so the GOP's low rated candidates could compete in the national election.

I suggest you actually read the links I provided....it might help you stop making a public fool of yourself....I said might.

Clinton herself was not the subject of the FBI investigation...her emails were. So for Lynch to ask Comey to call it a "matter" instead of an "investigation" was an attempt to get Comey to stop indicting Clinton publicly without proof. Comey was way out of line in how he handled the investigation....and deserved to be fired.

code1211 · Jul 16, 2017

Moot said:
I showed and provided a link to the State Department and NARA regulations regarding emails. Did you find anything that said personal email accounts were illegal?

Last I checked, right wing dribble and butt hurt wasn't the law.

I assume you know little about the law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

Cornell Law School Search Cornell

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]Support Us! [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Search

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 93 › § 1924

[h=1]18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material[/h]Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

prev | next

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b)For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c)In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

Moot · Jul 16, 2017

code1211 said:
I assume you know little about the law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924
Cornell Law School Search Cornell

[FONT="][/FONT][/COLOR]Support Us![/URL] [FONT="][/FONT] Search

[URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text"]U.S. Code

› Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 93 › § 1924

[h=1]18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material[/h]Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code

Notes

prev | next
(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b)For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c)In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

I know enough about criminal law to know that it requires mens rea....and no one could prove that she did in fact break any laws or had any intent to break any laws....and thats why she wasn't indicted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

I would also add that one thing that seems to get overlooked by the zealous right in their "Stalinesque" crusade to criminalize Clinton...is that she had the authority to classify or declassify any information she wanted...and that the only three marked classified emails found in the entire batch were human error.

Again, read the links I provided and find that she did not break any State Department or NARA laws, rules or regulations.

code1211 · Jul 16, 2017

Moot said:
I know enough about criminal law to know that it requires mens rea....and no one could prove that she did in fact break any laws or had any intent to break any laws....and thats why she wasn't indicted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

Again, read the links I provided and find that she did not break any State Department or NARA laws or regulations.

Ah!

So you are asserting that even though

Hillary entered into a conspiracy

to set up a private server on which to conduct State Department Communication

in her unauthorized location

holding materials concerning foreign relations of the United States

that she had no intent to do so?

What planet are you from?

Unitedwestand13 · Jul 16, 2017

code1211 said:
Ah!

So you are asserting that even though

Hillary entered into a conspiracy

to set up a private server on which to conduct State Department Communication

in her unauthorized location

holding materials concerning foreign relations of the United States

that she had no intent to do so?

What planet are you from?

The planet where the Republican Party has seemingly lost interest in prosecuting Hilliary Clinton for anything related to emails.

Moot · Jul 16, 2017

code1211 said:
Ah!

So you are asserting that even though

Hillary entered into a conspiracy

to set up a private server on which to conduct State Department Communication

in her unauthorized location

holding materials concerning foreign relations of the United States

that she had no intent to do so?

What planet are you from?

What planet are you from that you get to lie and make phony assertions about what I said and expect to be taken seriously?

To the moon, Code1211. :roll:

PS...the law(s) you posted also require that someone was either harmed or injured by Clinton's actions...and none were. However, the CIA and national security were compromised by Rep. Chaffetz and Rep. Issa in their zeal to find dirt on Clinton. So why weren't they indicted?

Mach · Jul 20, 2017

Moderate Right said:
And who would you call quality people, liberals?

I may not have agreed with all of Reagan's policy, but he seemed like a stand-up kinda guy.
Bush Sr. too.

Bush Jr was too weak, immature, and ignorant for me.

Trump has obviously created a radioactive administration, many have left, but even more have not bothered to apply or rejected their advances.

code1211 · Jul 21, 2017

Unitedwestand13 said:
The planet where the Republican Party has seemingly lost interest in prosecuting Hilliary Clinton for anything related to emails.

Among the various things wrong with the administration of the legal system in the US is exactly what you just said.

Why should it make any difference at all if the Republican Party or the Democrat party wants to prosecute a criminal?

Why should it make any difference at all if the Republican party or the Democrat Party wants to fabricate crimes to frame an individual?

Our legal system has departed from being a nation of laws to being a nation of favoritism, privilege and castes.

Jefferson weeps.

code1211 · Jul 21, 2017

Moot said:
What planet are you from that you get to lie and make phony assertions about what I said and expect to be taken seriously?

To the moon, Code1211. :roll:

PS...the law(s) you posted also require that someone was either harmed or injured by Clinton's actions...and none were. However, the CIA and national security were compromised by Rep. Chaffetz and Rep. Issa in their zeal to find dirt on Clinton. So why weren't they indicted?

Because our legal system is set up to protect some and diminish others.

The political elites from either party are small minded, venomous, perverters of justice.

They control the system and administer the law to maintain their position and power. Justice has no place in their considerations. EVER.

I should have thought that you would have divined this in the news.

Those with no connections or wealth are pretty much screwed if they get in trouble. Those others with both of these are pretty much insulated from trouble.

This has been in all the news reports.

Moot · Jul 21, 2017

code1211 said:
Among the various things wrong with the administration of the legal system in the US is exactly what you just said.

Why should it make any difference at all if the Republican Party or the Democrat party wants to prosecute a criminal?

Why should it make any difference at all if the Republican party or the Democrat Party wants to fabricate crimes to frame an individual?

Our legal system has departed from being a nation of laws to being a nation of favoritism, privilege and castes.

Jefferson weeps.

When has the country not been a nation of favoritism, privilege and castes?

code1211 · Jul 22, 2017

Moot said:
When has the country not been a nation of favoritism, privilege and castes?

Jeffereson has been weeping for a long time.

The question you ignored was this:

"Why should it make any difference at all if the Republican party or the Democrat Party wants to fabricate crimes to frame an individual?"

cpwill · Jul 22, 2017

Moot said:
I know enough about criminal law to know that it requires mens rea....and no one could prove that she did in fact break any laws or had any intent to break any laws....and thats why she wasn't indicted.

Actually it does not. It requires "Gross Negligence". She wasn't indicted because, while Comey said her actions were illegal, he thought she and her staff were only "Extremely Careless", which is a legal standard he made up, apparently so he could claim it was different from "Grossly Negligent".

Moot · Jul 22, 2017

cpwill said:
Actually it does not. It requires "Gross Negligence". She wasn't indicted because, while Comey said her actions were illegal, he thought she and her staff were only "Extremely Careless", which is a legal standard he made up, apparently so he could claim it was different from "Grossly Negligent".

Comey never said her actions were "illegal". The only people who seem to disagree with Comey on mens rea...are ignorant, rabid, partisan Clinton haters. But fortunately, we are still a nation of laws....not partisan mob rule.

“We could not prove that the people sending the information, either in that case or in the other case with the secretary, were acting with any kind of the mens rea — with any kind of criminal intent,” Mr. Comey said.

Did Clinton knowingly, willfully, intend to harm or injure the national defense? Did any of the emails that were sent to or received on her server relate to, harm or injure the national defense? Did she knowingly send classified emails to anyone she didn't know or trust? What State Department or NARA rules or regulations regarding emails did she knowingly, willfully, intend to violate or was "grossly negligent" in handling? Did Clinton have the authority to classify and declassify any information in her custody?

If Clinton didn't act with mens rea and national security was not harmed or injured by her actions and she didn't violate NARA or State Department email regulations....then there was nothing to indict her for....and "no reasonable attorney would prosecute."

cpwill · Jul 22, 2017

Moot said:
Comey never said her actions were "illegal". The only people who seem to disagree with Comey on mens rea...are ignorant, rabid, partisan Clinton haters. But fortunately, we are still a nation of laws....not partisan mob rule.

Actually the entity who disagrees with Comey on Mens Rea is 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:

...(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed...

I made two of those words kinda more noticeable than the others - can you tell us what they are, Moot?

“We could not prove that the people sending the information, either in that case or in the other case with the secretary, were acting with any kind of the mens rea — with any kind of criminal intent,” Mr. Comey said.

Exactly. Comey chose not to apply the law, but rather to apply a standard that allowed him to avoid applying the law. He declared that they had only been guilty of "Extreme Careless", which was somehow different than "Gross Negligence". :shrug:

Did Clinton knowingly, willfully, intend to harm or injure the national defense?

In order to avoid admitting that she had, Clinton testified to the FBI agents that she did not know what a classification marking was.

She was a Original Classifying Authority at the time.

To put that in perspective, this is like the head of your States' DMV claiming that he shouldn't be held liable for the accident, because he didn't know what a red light meant.

So... if you want to argue that Hillary Clinton was utterly incompetent to the most basic tasks of her job, then you could, with intellectual consistency, argue that she lacked intent. If you want to give her credit for at least the level of reading comprehension I expected (and got) out of 19 year olds whom I managed in the Marine Corps, however.... not so much.

Did any of the emails that were sent to or received on her server relate to, harm or injure the national defense? Did she knowingly send classified emails to anyone she didn't know or trust?

Whether she trusted them or not is immaterial - the system she sent them over is what is relevant.

For example, I trust plenty of the people I work with currently. I would never send them a classified email over gmail, because that would be illegal.

What State Department or NARA rules or regulations regarding emails did she knowingly, willfully, intend to violate or was "grossly negligent" in handling?

18 USC 793
18 USC 798
18 USC 1924
Executive Order 13526. Additionally, though compared to the multiple felonies above it's kinda small ball, she also violated the terms of her SF 312, which is a lifelong, binding contract with the US Government.

Did Clinton have the authority to classify and declassify any information in her custody?

Clinton had the authority to declassify State Department information. The majority of her classified emails look like that is what they were, as they were CONFIDENTIAL, and that is where a lot of State correspondence is kept at. CONFIDENTIAL material cannot go into a regular email system - there is a separate system known as SIPRNet to handle those communications, and it is illegal to transmit them or store them in non-classified information settings or systems. But, if she really wanted to push it, she could claim that - in every single instance of exposure of State information, which would sorta boggle the mind - she was forced by circumstances to use her OCA authority to declassify that information without going through the process of doing so.

Clinton did not have the authority to declassify CIA or NSA data, which was also present in her emails.

"no reasonable attorney would prosecute."

We have prosecuted for this, actually. Successfully too. As I understand it, it was claimed those examples didn't count, because they were of military members.