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

[Oborosen]

Look at the timeline:

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

...(sigh).. I guess you're just going to keep ignoring the original issue here.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

...(sigh).. I guess you're just going to keep ignoring the original issue here.

Clinton didn't do anything wrong with regard to the deleted e-mails, but I guess I can't compete with Hannity yelling in your ear for years upon years.

Look at the timeline. They reached an agreement for the work e-mails. Congress got that. Clinton's aid ordered the non-work/personal stuff to be deleted. 6 months later Congress decided it wanted at all the e-mails and issued a subpoena. The IT dude, of his own volition, at that point, deleted the stuff he forgot to delete 6 months prior. The FBI later found the content of many of the e-mails that were deleted, but there was no indication that the e-mails the IT dude deleted were nefarious in any way.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So I take it that you're completely fine with lying, and destroying evidence in a federal investigation.. that's good to know.

Except, of course, that isn't what ACTUALLY happened - is it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

Trump did on his Iphone.

The legal opinion from the law firm of Wieselwort, du Plicité, Poco-Escrupuloso, Flerd, and Corrotto LLP, which was paid for and has been officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation” is

That horribly illegal and highly dangerous to the security of the United States of America activity that that so-called "President" - Barack HUSSEIN Obama illegally committed in an illegal and dangerous manner is perfectly OK for PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP to do because Obama did it first, and the sooner that everyone learns that PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP can do no wrong because he is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the better.
​

Please get with the program.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Hilarity told him it was no problem...

Which, in fact, it wasn't - was it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Nah, there were NUMEROUS other reasons to lock her up.

Indeed.

And that is why the DoJ has brought down all of those indictments charging Ms. Clinton with all those crimes - isn't it?

On the other hand, I do realize that there are a significant number of people in the United States of America who believe (deep in their secret hearts) that "Being a member of the Democratic Party" SHOULD be an indictable offence for which the punishment is incarceration followed by a lifetime ban on voting, owning guns, being employed by any level of government, and having contact with children.

PS - There is also a significant number of people in the United States of America who believe (deep in their secret hearts) that "Being a member of the Democratic Party" SHOULD be an indictable offence for which the punishment is incarceration followed by a lifetime ban on voting, owning guns, being employed by any level of government, and having contact with children - but that number is smaller than the number of people in the United States of America who believe (deep in their secret hearts) that "Being a member of the Democratic Party" SHOULD be an indictable offence for which the punishment is incarceration followed by a lifetime ban on voting, owning guns, being employed by any level of government, and having contact with children.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

Good we can all play by your rules.

But, but, but? Isn't it true that, if someone sells "X" two weeks BEFORE the government passes a law banning the sale of "X" then they are **G*U*I*L*T*Y** of the crime of selling "X"?

After all, everyone knows that clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 and clause 1 of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution are totally irrelevant in today's world - right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

On EXACTLY what LEGAL grounds do you propose that Ms. Clinton be incarcerated without [a] being indicted, being tried, [c] being convicted, [d] being sentenced to incarceration, and [e] having exhausted all legally available appeals without success?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

Given that the government of the United States of America has a -lengthy- history of operating prisons that incarcerate people WITHOUT a conviction by a jury (or even without a trial [and even without a charge being laid {and, sometimes, without even admitting that anyone was incarcerated}]), I wouldn't be so confident of that "No prison would accept her without a conviction by a jury."

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Clinton didn't do anything wrong with regard to the deleted e-mails, but I guess I can't compete with Hannity yelling in your ear for years upon years.

Look at the timeline. They reached an agreement for the work e-mails. Congress got that. Clinton's aid ordered the non-work/personal stuff to be deleted. 6 months later Congress decided it wanted at all the e-mails and issued a subpoena. The IT dude, of his own volition, at that point, deleted the stuff he forgot to delete 6 months prior. The FBI later found the content of many of the e-mails that were deleted, but there was no indication that the e-mails the IT dude deleted were nefarious in any way.

Since the subpoena was NOT directed to "the IT dude", it is unlikely that any conviction of "the IT dude" could be footed upon their "failing to comply with the subpoena".

Since Ms. Clinton's agents had instructed that the NON-relevant e-Mails be deleted well prior to the issuance of the subpoena, it is unlikely that they would have ordered that a destruction which they would likely have thought had been carried out prior to the issuance of the subpoena NOT be carried out AFTER the issuance of the subpoena and so, again, it is unlikely that any conviction (this time of Ms. Clinton's agents) could be footed upon their "failing to comply with the subpoena".

PS - The possibility that the (rather extreme) methods used (by "the IT dude") to wipe Ms. Clinton's eMails were used primarily to obscure the fact that "the IT dude" had been remiss in their duties cannot be completely ignored. (In fact, from my personal experience with people who were "covering up misbehaviour", it is highly likely that "the IT dude" was more concerned with concealing the fact that they had not done their work properly than they were concerned with deleting the eMails. I could be wrong on that point, but I am willing to bet my lunch money on it.)

 

[smallvoice]

On EXACTLY what LEGAL grounds do you propose that Ms. Clinton be incarcerated without [a] being indicted, being tried, [c] being convicted, [d] being sentenced to incarceration, and [e] having exhausted all legally available appeals without success?

In much the same way you want to handle Trump. Except of course, EVERYONE knows that she played fast and loose with classified material. If I had done that I would be under Ft Leavenworth...

 

[American]

I agree. I'm glad you're not a hypocrite like all the other Trump supporters.

Like I've also said, Hillary should have used the govt email system.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

In much the same way you want to handle Trump.

Really?

The way that I (personally) would prefer to "handle Trump" would be:

1. a full investigation of the allegations be made;
   *
2. all parties, including Mr. Trump, cooperate fully with the investigation;
   *
3. NO records be refused to the investigators;
   *
4. an impartial decision be made as to whether or not the investigation as produced sufficient evidence of a specific act that actually breaches the law so as to give rise to "reasonable prospect of conviction";
   *
5. if so, specific charges be laid;
   *
6. if not, the matter be dropped PERMANENTLY;
   *
7. but if specific charges are laid, then those charges be tried in an impartial forum (one whose members have NOT predetermined their conclusion as to guilt) with both sides being given complete freedom to present the whole of their case and the decision as to guilt be based solely on the actual evidence and the actual law;
   *
8. and if the decision as to guilt results in no conviction, then the matter be dropped PERMANENTLY;
   *
9. however if the decision as to guilt does result in a conviction, then the appropriate penalty as provided by law be imposed.

I would (personally) prefer to see the allegations against Ms. Clinton dealt with in the same way.

Your "Except of course, EVERYONE knows that she played fast and loose with classified material." implies that that is NOT how you would prefer that the allegations against Ms. Clinton be handled.

It also implies that that is NOT how you would prefer that the allegations against Mr. Trump be handled.

If I had done that I would be under Ft Leavenworth...

Considering that people do NOT get sent to Ft. Leavenworth for "violating policy", I rather doubt that that would be the case were you NOT a member of the US military when the alleged actions occurred (bearing in mind that "Military Law" doesn't have all that much in common with "Civilian Law" I won't comment on whether you would if you HAD been a member of the US military when the alleged actions occurred).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Like I've also said, Hillary should have used the govt email system.

Indeed, "should have" and not "was absolutely required by law to have".

Heaven help the economy if everyone who did something rather dumb that they should not have done was sent to jail.

 

[smallvoice]

Really?

The way that I (personally) would prefer to "handle Trump" would be:

1. a full investigation of the allegations be made;
   *
2. all parties, including Mr. Trump, cooperate fully with the investigation;
   *
3. NO records be refused to the investigators;
   *
4. an impartial decision be made as to whether or not the investigation as produced sufficient evidence of a specific act that actually breaches the law so as to give rise to "reasonable prospect of conviction";
   *
5. if so, specific charges be laid;
   *
6. if not, the matter be dropped PERMANENTLY;
   *
7. but if specific charges are laid, then those charges be tried in an impartial forum (one whose members have NOT predetermined their conclusion as to guilt) with both sides being given complete freedom to present the whole of their case and the decision as to guilt be based solely on the actual evidence and the actual law;
   *
8. and if the decision as to guilt results in no conviction, then the matter be dropped PERMANENTLY;
   *
9. however if the decision as to guilt does result in a conviction, then the appropriate penalty as provided by law be imposed.

I would (personally) prefer to see the allegations against Ms. Clinton dealt with in the same way.

Your "Except of course, EVERYONE knows that she played fast and loose with classified material." implies that that is NOT how you would prefer that the allegations against Ms. Clinton be handled.

It also implies that that is NOT how you would prefer that the allegations against Mr. Trump be handled.



Considering that people do NOT get sent to Ft. Leavenworth for "violating policy", I rather doubt that that would be the case were you NOT a member of the US military when the alleged actions occurred (bearing in mind that "Military Law" doesn't have all that much in common with "Civilian Law" I won't comment on whether you would if you HAD been a member of the US military when the alleged actions occurred).

Who actually cares what you want?

Clinton "violated policy"?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Who actually cares what you want?

Your post, to which I was responding to was

"In much the same way you want to handle Trump."
​

and I thought that you might possibly be interested in what that was.

Obviously, you aren't and simply don't care whether your statements have even the remotest bearing on reality.

Clinton "violated policy"?

Yep, that's what ALL of the investigations have found. "Policy violations" - yes, "legal violations" - no.

But, then again, do you really care?

 

[smallvoice]

Your post, to which I was responding to was

"In much the same way you want to handle Trump."
​

and I thought that you might possibly be interested in what that was.

Obviously, you aren't and simply don't care whether your statements have even the remotest bearing on reality.



Yep, that's what ALL of the investigations have found. "Policy violations" - yes, "legal violations" - no.

But, then again, do you really care?

Sorry to break it to you, but when she failed to secure the classified material she had, she violated way more than a "policy", but you clearly don't care about that.

 

[Threegoofs]

Sorry to break it to you, but when she failed to secure the classified material she had, she violated way more than a "policy", but you clearly don't care about that.

Boy you must be pissed about Ivanka using her personal email.

Oh, wait.

 

[Lisa]

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.

Obama did use a secure phone,

Obama's been joking about his awful phone situation for years now. While his BlackBerry was considered surprisingly high-tech when he came into office, the situation quickly changed. As far back as 2010, Obama called using his BlackBerry "no fun," and then a few years ago he lamented that security concerns prevent him from using an iPhone. While discussing his BlackBerry on Jimmy Kimmel's show last year, Obama started laughing after a single person applauded. "The one old guy there," Obama said, "He's my age. Somebody my generation."

Obama didn't say what phone he's using now, and it seems like pretty much everything is a possibility. In 2014, The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House was testing Android phones for secure usage. Then this April, The New York Times said that some White House staffers were upgrading to iPhones.

At the time, the Times said Obama was still using "a specially modified, highly secure BlackBerry." So he's either moved on from that in the months since, or Obama only got to move from his old BlackBerry to a new one. On Fallon's show, at least, he makes it sound like he's done with BlackBerry.

 

[MTAtech]

Sorry to break it to you, but when she failed to secure the classified material she had, she violated way more than a "policy", but you clearly don't care about that.

How's the Orange Julius doing with his promise to lock her up?

 

[Common Sense 1]

Trump should use a govt supplied phone.

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Dec 6

Fake News @CNN is reporting that I am “still using personal cell phone for calls despite repeated security warnings.” This is totally false information and reporting. I haven’t had a personal cell phone for years. Only use government approved and issued phones. Retract!

 

[Threegoofs]

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Dec 6

Fake News @CNN is reporting that I am “still using personal cell phone for calls despite repeated security warnings.” This is totally false information and reporting. I haven’t had a personal cell phone for years. Only use government approved and issued phones. Retract!

Sounds like a lie.

 

[charliebrown]

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.

I think Trump is more worried about the domestic surveillance.

 

[ClaraD]

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.

China are you listening.....

 

[MTAtech]

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Dec 6

Fake News @CNN is reporting that I am “still using personal cell phone for calls despite repeated security warnings.” This is totally false information and reporting. I haven’t had a personal cell phone for years. Only use government approved and issued phones. Retract!

You take this tweet at face value? This is a guy who consistently tweets lies and seems not to know the difference between a lie and the truth. According to Politico:

The president has resisted calls in the past from his advisers to practice better phone security, telling aides that it would be “too inconvenient” to swap the phones he uses to tweet on a more frequent basis, even as he campaigned for president by slamming former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server while in office.

The linked Politico article also says:

The president has gone as long as five months without having the phone checked by security experts. It is unclear how often Trump’s call-capable phones, which are essentially used as burner phones, are swapped out.

President Barack Obama handed over his White House phones every 30 days to be examined by telecommunications staffers for hacking and other suspicious activity, according to an Obama administration official.
The White House declined to comment for this story, but a senior West Wing official said the call-capable phones “are seamlessly swapped out on a regular basis through routine support operations. Because of the security controls of the Twitter phone and the Twitter account, it does not necessitate regular change-out.”

Trump’s call-capable cellphone has a camera and microphone, unlike the White House-issued cellphones used by Obama. Keeping those components creates a risk that hackers could use them to access the phone and monitor the president’s movements. The GPS location tracker, however — which can be used to track the president’s whereabouts — is disabled on Trump’s devices.