President Snowflake

RaceBannon said:

Looks like I was right

Again

By the way you only need to look at the words of the revered and saintly James Comey to understand how HIllary broke the law.

The same Comey who testified under oath on May 3 that no one including Trump put any pressure on him. Now that pales to an invisible document read over the phone to the NY Times but it does bring perjury in to play. Again

By all means continue with your very rational Trump Derangement Syndrome.

False. The questioning was limited to whether or not anyone at the DOJ put any pressure on Comey in the Russia investigation. At no point was Trump mentioned.

https://youtu.be/o-dW59Fu1hg

Oh this looks familiar

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/18/stocks-surged-as-trading-floors-watched-breaking-infowars-video-it-was-two-weeks-old-and-wrong

Sledog said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

AZDuck said:

RaceBannon said:

Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.

Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.

If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.

the media is not his problem

I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?

Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.

Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!

Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.

HTH

It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!

Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?

Mens rea?

Saracen said:

Not sure how exactly Comey's testimony on May 3 and what the memo say are contradictory or any form of perjury.

On Feb 14 Trump asks Pence and Sessions to leave room and let him speak privately to Comey, says “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey records in his memos that Trump said this. Goes back to doing his job

In the May 3 testimony Comey is asked to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus” and asked, “If the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?” He says no, he hasn't been "told to stop". He doesn't mention his conversation with Trump because a) he was asked about pressure from AG or DOJ not POTUS/White House and b) being asked is different than being told and nothing Trump had done to that point was hindering investigation. He also says the investigation is going full steam ahead.

On May 9 Trump fires Comey and the next day goes on TV and says he was thinking of "this Russia thing" when he did it. This now comes across as "I asked Comey to let this go and he didn't do it". Firing the head of the FBI, well now there's some political pressure to shut down an investigation.

But yeahhhh, a guy who's career FBI with a reputation for non-partisanship and unimpeachable integrity is probably likely to spout off and perjure himself when talking to a bunch of Senators in a routine hearing.

Comey was NEVER and FBI agent. He's a political appointee by Obozo.

Trump can indeed say "can you let this go". That is not obstruction in any way, means, shape or form.

Sledog said:

AZDuck said:

Sledog said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

AZDuck said:

RaceBannon said:

Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.

Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.

If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.

the media is not his problem

I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?

Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.

Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!

Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.

HTH

It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!

Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?

Mens rea?

I have a one word answer. Ready?

Training.

They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.

Hope this helps:.

Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence

Prima facie evidence only prevents summary judgment before trial. You have to do better than that to actually prevail at trial. Prima facie evidence, without more, will get your case dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case.

I don't think anyone disputes that the intelligence leakage happened on Killary's watch at State, and that her carelessness was responsible. "Mens rea" gets to her knowingly leaking the classified data. Huma Abedin stated that she did not realize that her computer was saving documents to "the cloud" on her home network which resulted in Weiner's sexting laptop containing Huma's email PST. Weiner was not aware that it was accessible from his machine either. So, without knowledge (mens rea) or intent, a prosecution would founder.

U.S. law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal.

Lots of people get "read on" to classified programs. National defense stuff is different than foreign relations and diplomatic stuff. There is some overlap at State, so one would need to look at the particular programs in question. I don't know, since I haven't read the files in question.

Another issue is whether Killary was a classification authority for the information that was released. Just as the President can de-classify anything at will, classification authorities also have broad authority to de-classify certain information generated within their Departments.

So, like most prosecutions, the biggest rock in the proverbial rucksack would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Killary possessed criminal intent to disclose national defense information. There's the mens rea again.

Comey's analysis was that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." As a guy who was the US Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. (i.e. Manhattan) and the Assistant Attorney General for the Bush II administration, seems like he's got the right kind of background to make that call.

Sledog said:

AZDuck said:

Sledog said:

AZDuck said:

Sledog said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

AZDuck said:

RaceBannon said:

Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.

Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.

If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.

the media is not his problem

I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?

Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.

Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!

Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.

HTH

It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!

Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?

Mens rea?

I have a one word answer. Ready?

Training.

They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.

Hope this helps:.

Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence

Prima facie evidence only prevents summary judgment before trial. You have to do better than that to actually prevail at trial. Prima facie evidence, without more, will get your case dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case.

I don't think anyone disputes that the intelligence leakage happened on Killary's watch at State, and that her carelessness was responsible. "Mens rea" gets to her knowingly leaking the classified data. Huma Abedin stated that she did not realize that her computer was saving documents to "the cloud" on her home network which resulted in Weiner's sexting laptop containing Huma's email PST. Weiner was not aware that it was accessible from his machine either. So, without knowledge (mens rea) or intent, a prosecution would founder.

U.S. law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal.

Lots of people get "read on" to classified programs. National defense stuff is different than foreign relations and diplomatic stuff. There is some overlap at State, so one would need to look at the particular programs in question. I don't know, since I haven't read the files in question.

Another issue is whether Killary was a classification authority for the information that was released. Just as the President can de-classify anything at will, classification authorities also have broad authority to de-classify certain information generated within their Departments.

So, like most prosecutions, the biggest rock in the proverbial rucksack would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Killary possessed criminal intent to disclose national defense information. There's the mens rea again.

Comey's analysis was that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." As a guy who was the US Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. (i.e. Manhattan) and the Assistant Attorney General for the Bush II administration, seems like he's got the right kind of background to make that call.

It is not Comey's place to decide prosecution. That's where this gets really stinky. Prosecutors always decide whether or not to prosecute. Law enforcement submits the evidence to the prosecutor and then a decision is made. Comey was way outside the norm. Plenty of evidence to be bound over for trial. Comey himself said classified information was transmitted and wound up in large numbers of email chains. Hillary didn't want to be bothered with having to look at the information on the proper systems and requested it be sent out via unsecured means to her server which was hacked multiple times by foreign powers. That's intent.

You're right about the pros-non-pros decision. The decision to prosecute or not was made the DoJ. Comey was right that this would be a tough case to prove up - and he has the background to make that recommendation.

The gift that keeps on giving

WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”

The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that Mr. Trump dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.

The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

This thread should be deleted with that title.

Would you call Obama President N Word?

Didn't think so.

Sledog said:

WilburHooksHands said:

Sledog said:

AZDuck said:

Sledog said:

AZDuck said:

Sledog said:

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

AZDuck said:

RaceBannon said:

Actually in America the reasonable assumption is innocent until proven guilty or at least until there is more than nothing but hot air by political opponents.

Trump can defend himself all he wants regardless of the birther thing or anything else. And he is going to.

If you can't see the difference in how the media treats him I can't help you.

the media is not his problem

I'm glad to hear that you want to give your guy the benefit of the doubt. Since innocence until proven guilty is important to you I'm sure you have always applied that standard to Hillary and Obama, right?

Hillary did in fact send classified information via her private email server. She requested her aid Huma to remove classified headings from emails and to send them out. Her emails were also sent to Weiners computers. This is a federal felony. People go to jail for it. Comey gave her a pass.

Their has been absolutely nothing in the way of evidence or findings of any kind indicating trump has done anything illegal. Nothing. The media is calling for impeachment. No double standards here!

Sending an email of a weiner could be a felony. Sending an email to Weiner isn't a felony.

HTH

It most certainly is my maroonic friend. Secret is secret. Their pain's a comin'!

Hi. I've got a two word question for ya. Ready?

Mens rea?

I have a one word answer. Ready?

Training.

They were all trained, and signed off on that training, to recognize classified material even if it was not marked. Including what systems and means it can be communicated by. The act of doing it is : ready? Prime Facie evidence. it's quite obvious they intended to as Hillary set up her own server and instructed Huma in an email to strip the classified headings prior to sending classified documents out. Sure sounds like intent. Oh and last I checked Anthony Wiener doesn't have clearance.

Hope this helps:.

Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence

Prima facie evidence only prevents summary judgment before trial. You have to do better than that to actually prevail at trial. Prima facie evidence, without more, will get your case dismissed at the close of the prosecution's case.

I don't think anyone disputes that the intelligence leakage happened on Killary's watch at State, and that her carelessness was responsible. "Mens rea" gets to her knowingly leaking the classified data. Huma Abedin stated that she did not realize that her computer was saving documents to "the cloud" on her home network which resulted in Weiner's sexting laptop containing Huma's email PST. Weiner was not aware that it was accessible from his machine either. So, without knowledge (mens rea) or intent, a prosecution would founder.

U.S. law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal.

Lots of people get "read on" to classified programs. National defense stuff is different than foreign relations and diplomatic stuff. There is some overlap at State, so one would need to look at the particular programs in question. I don't know, since I haven't read the files in question.

Another issue is whether Killary was a classification authority for the information that was released. Just as the President can de-classify anything at will, classification authorities also have broad authority to de-classify certain information generated within their Departments.

So, like most prosecutions, the biggest rock in the proverbial rucksack would be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Killary possessed criminal intent to disclose national defense information. There's the mens rea again.

Comey's analysis was that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." As a guy who was the US Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. (i.e. Manhattan) and the Assistant Attorney General for the Bush II administration, seems like he's got the right kind of background to make that call.

It is not Comey's place to decide prosecution. That's where this gets really stinky. Prosecutors always decide whether or not to prosecute. Law enforcement submits the evidence to the prosecutor and then a decision is made. Comey was way outside the norm. Plenty of evidence to be bound over for trial. Comey himself said classified information was transmitted and wound up in large numbers of email chains. Hillary didn't want to be bothered with having to look at the information on the proper systems and requested it be sent out via unsecured means to her server which was hacked multiple times by foreign powers. That's intent.

This is the most lucid post you've ever made.

Mostly I'm just having fun.

Live footage of Sledog having fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvT_gqs5ETk